Military Review

Zumwalt was built by pests.

190
Zumwalt was built by pests.



The previous article on the "unexplained" discrepancies in the ratio of the payload of modern ships and ships of the Second World War era caused a heated debate on the "VO" villages. Participants put forward various theories, eventually coming to the wrong conclusions.

I think it is necessary to develop this topic and thereby dot the "and".

Briefly problematic issues.

Armored monsters of the past, whose gun turrets weighed more than half the modern destroyer. With thick armored decks and heavy-duty turbines, with which only the power plants of nuclear cruisers can now compare. Despite all this steampunk, bulky combat posts and crews of thousands of people, the displacement of cruisers remained within reasonable limits. Depending on the type, from 10 to 20 thousand tons.



Half a century has passed. The bulky towers of the main caliber disappeared. The designers have completely abandoned the reservation. Cut the crews several times. They limited the speed of the ships, thereby reducing the required power of their power plants. Increased efficiency by applying efficient diesel engines and gas turbines. Switched from radio tubes to tiny chips. Placed weapon in the underdeck space, further reducing the overturning moment it creates. Progress touched everything that one can dream of - on a modern ship each element (shield, crane, generator) weighs less than a device of a similar purpose on a cruiser of the time of WWII.

Changed the conditions of the battle. Everything has changed! But the displacement of ships remained the same.

It is clear that to “squeeze” a cruiser to the size of a missile boat is unwise. Still, the provision of seaworthiness, etc.

But in this case, we have 3000 tons of load reserve. And now they need something to fill and rational use.

“That's what they are used for!” Dear reader exclaims. Thousands of tons were spent on missiles, radars, computers, six-barreled anti-aircraft guns and other high-tech equipment ...

And it will be wrong.

According to the relative weight of weapons (payload), modern ships are twice as inferior to WW2 cruisers (in which payload also means armor protection).

There is no reservation now. And all the elements of weapons - both together and separately (missiles and launchers, radars, consoles in the combat information center, etc.) weigh less than weapons and MSAs of World War II cruisers.

How is this possible? Just a few vivid examples:


Armored director of fire control system Mk.37 with two radars Mk.12 and Mk.22. Post weight 16 tons.

The main radar of the Aegis system is AN / SPY-1 modification “B”. The mass of each of the four phased antennas mounted on the walls of the superstructure is 3,6 t. Five equipment rooms, the weight of the equipment is indicated in 5 tons. Those. even with all four HEADLIGHTS and signal processor hardware, a modern radar barely weighs up to one rusty director. And on warships of a bygone era stood from two to four such directors.

Idzhis-cruiser has an additional two-coordinate radar and four radar to highlight targets. The backlight radar weighs 1225 kg, the mass of moving elements (plates) 680 kg.



For visual comparison, the Legsington aircraft carrier (1944) complex of radio equipment. The director Mk.37 (#4) is noticeable on the left. At the very top is the SG-type surface survey radar (#13). Its weight is one and a half tons. Similar devices stood on any destroyer, cruiser or battleship. I will not describe each element, since everything is too obvious there.

To heighten the effect - analog computers in the combat information center of the cruiser "Belfast" (1939 year). Soviet chips rest.



The same happens with the weapon история. Details have been set forth in the previous article. For example, the 64-charge firearms Mk.41 with full ammunition (“Tomahawks” and long-range anti-aircraft missiles) weighs 230 tons.

For comparison: one tower of the Soviet cruiser Ave. 26-bis (“Maxim Gorky”) weighed 247 tons. It should be borne in mind that 145 tons accounted for the rotating part, located above the deck. It is easy to imagine how this worsened the stability in comparison with the modern UVP, all elements of which are deep in the underdeck space!



Critical readers, of course, will protest. In their opinion, the equipment on board the modern ship is accompanied by some kind of “mysterious” article of load associated with a large number of communications, cables and wires.

So, dear, even if you wind the cruiser up and down with fiber, like a cocoon, you do not compensate for the thousands of tons left after removing the 100-meter armor belts (solid array of steel, palm-thickness).

The paradox is - no answer.

The solution of the problem (carefully, kills the intrigue!)

The solution should be sought not in the articles of the load, but in the layout of the ship.

The thesis about the lightness of modern radar and equipment is brilliantly confirmed by the appearance of the missile cruisers. Thanks to the “lightness” of computer equipment, consoles, etc. “hi-tech”, designers can place equipment at any level of the superstructure without fear of breaking stability.



What do you see in the picture? That's right, a solid superstructure from side to side, as tall as a multi-storey building.

If you keep the same displacement and ballast values ​​as the old cruisers, but without heavy weapons and armor, you can build a “tower” of any height.

Why are they doing that?

Designers are trying to increase the height of the installation of antenna posts. Having no special recommendations and restrictions on this subject, they choose the most obvious way - they increase the height of the superstructure, simultaneously using the resulting volumes and facilities for the installation of new combat posts and fitness centers.

The negative effect of “windage” of bulky superstructures is compensated by additional ballast, the benefit of the designers in the reserve of thousands of tons of load reserve.



In “Tikonderogi” in general, everything is correct - the “mirrors” of HEADLIGHTS hang right on the walls. Simplified installation of equipment and its maintenance, at any time you can get access to the antenna itself, just rising to the right deck.

The atomic “Orlan” has grown uncontrollably upwards (59 meters from the bottom to the top of the foremast). And its superstructure turned into a Mayan step pyramid, with radio equipment installed at different levels. The second pyramid shot up closer to the stern, finally turning the cruiser into a ritual temple of death.


26 thousand tons - dance what you want


“Zamvolt” is the right path to success. The huge floating pyramid embodying all the superstructures, mast structures, antenna posts and gas pipe ducts. Now it is a single whole in order to prevent the desecration of the sacred image of the stealth destroyer.



True, the number of launch shafts was reduced to 80, which, even with two six-inch guns, looks like a shame for an “uber ship” with a full displacement of 14 000 tons. But how beautiful and modern!

In general, despite all the advantages of high add-ons, this layout does not seem to be the most rational solution. Not only does the tall Himalayas increase the visibility of the ship, they simply “burn” the margin of stability that could be spent more usefully on installing additional systems (weapons, generators, constructive protection, etc.)

The only element for which the antenna installation height is critical is the low-altitude detection radar. Specialized radar, peering intensely at the horizon line, over which at any moment there may be a tiny dot. And then the score will go to seconds.

The higher the radar is installed, the more precious seconds the air defense system needs to intercept a low-flying rocket.

All other antennas height is useful, but not essential.

The long-range radar works on targets in the stratosphere and in space orbits, therefore any insinuations ± 10 meters for it do not matter. HEADLIGHTS can be quietly placed on the walls of a low superstructure, like the destroyer Orly Burk (and even lower - because the main radar of the Burke combines the radar detection functions of the NLC).

Satellite communication systems can work even at the very surface of the water.

Radio too.

Hence the question - if we need to raise only one radar to a height, then why should we foster the Himalayas, distorting the appearance of the destroyer?

The most obvious solution is a balloon. The usual balloon, which is used in the J-LENS - the new Pentagon system, to protect critical objects from low-flying missiles.



A shipborne radar balloon is much lighter and more compact than JLENS balloons.

Radar detection NLTs a priori, working at short distances, limited by the radio horizon. That is why they have low energy potential and small size. In fact, they are the same in size and purpose with the AN / APS-147 radar multipurpose helicopter MH-60R. Moreover, the creators of Romeo themselves have repeatedly stated that their system can be used for the early detection of low-flying missiles and the integration of helicopters into the Ajis destroyers air defense system.


Bulge at the bottom of the cab - fairing AN / APY-147


Such a radar should be raised above the water, to a height of at least 100 meters.

And it will be a breakthrough!

A) The range of the radio horizon will increase to 40 kilometers (instead of the current 15-20), which will bring marine air defense / missile defense systems to a whole new level.

B) The layout will change, there will be no need for ultrahigh bulky superstructures. With obvious consequences for other articles of the load.

Increase ammunition. Or put additional generators to provide power for the railguns and strategic missile defense radars deployed on the destroyer.

Or put armor. Without increasing ship displacement!

I do not agree - criticize, criticize - offer, offer - do, do - answer! ”

- Sergey Pavlovich Korolev.

Critics of the above theory will point out possible difficulties with the placement of equipment and combat posts, which, although they have a small mass, often require large volumes.

The components of the ground system C-400 are located on several mobile chassis. And it’s hard to believe that the same equipment and control cabin cannot fit on an 180-meter warship.

As is known, the figure with the largest area at a given perimeter is a circle (in three-dimensional space, the sphere has the largest volume).

Even if additional volumes are required, they can always be obtained without increasing the displacement of the ship. Just by increasing the width of the case by a couple of meters, reducing its length by the required value (10-20 m, conditional data). This will slightly affect the propulsive characteristics. The speed of the destroyer will decrease on the 1,5-2 node, but in the era of radar and precision weapons it does not matter.

In general, life is an unpredictable thing. Where each task can have several alternative solutions.


High-grade 1 missile cruiser
Author:
190 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. D-Master
    D-Master 22 September 2015 06: 45 New
    +18
    A very interesting conclusion from the article - perhaps in the future we will see squat and licked warships gliding over the water's edge. There is only one problem. The cost of the destroyer is equal to the cost of the division of tanks and an error in the project will lead to enormous costs. Therefore, nonetheless, conservative solutions will prevail without revolutionary leaps. IMHO of course.
    1. EGOrkka
      EGOrkka 22 September 2015 07: 44 New
      +2
      ..... The bed for the art system, well, just kaburaaaa !!!! pa ... there are no shells around the system .... bad ent is not a cowboy laughing
    2. avt
      avt 22 September 2015 09: 06 New
      +14
      Quote: D-Master
      A very interesting conclusion from the article is

      Interesting CONCLUSION! ???? wassat Yes, you re-read the TITLE - ,, Zumwalt was built by pests "!!! And this is after writing articles where Oleg excitedly praised ,, Zuivolt" !!! laughing Something happened ... maybe he ate something? wassat Need to do something ! ,, We lose it! "So it will be difficult to read soon after his signature any article like - ,, Aircraft carriers kings and lords of the seas" laughing laughing
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 22 September 2015 11: 42 New
        +4
        Quote: avt
        Yes, you re-read the TITLE - ,, Zumwalt was built by pests "!!! And this is after writing articles where Oleg excitedly praised ,, Zuivolt" !!!

        In a previous article about Zumwalt, I managed to catch all the anger of his fans, just doubting his uber abilities, and here is such sedition from Oleg. :)
        I wonder why the 56K Lockheed tethered balloon, with a payload of 363 kg, has a length of 33 meters? This is no longer a small hangar.
        1. avt
          avt 22 September 2015 16: 13 New
          +4
          Quote: lelikas
          In a previous article about Zumwalt, I managed to catch all the anger of his fans, only doubting his uber abilities,

          wassat Blasphemy! Lifetime cycle with nails! laughing
          Quote: sniper
          But she made me happy, thinks positively and, as always, is beautifully written.
          Now to the topic of the article.

          Almost like in a joke - Now about the main thing. Slowly gets up.
          Quote: sniper
          . With a balloon, perhaps, really busting, a hanging helicopter will constantly really gobble up all the fuel along with the motor resource. But there must be a way out.

          Quote: sniper
          Well, something like that, vskidku ..

          Offhand you can search and find on the cruiser ,, Russia "you seem to be experimenting with a balloon, again there are beautiful panoramic shots to the First World War of Sevastopol also from a balloon. Again, there are quite some materials on the Germans who were already in the Second World gyros in The submarine rope was lifted in order to detect targets before the creation of a small helicopter, and the fate of the air observer during an urgent dive should have been sad. So the experience of tethered climbing to a height of whatever was rich - if necessary, it can be worked out at a new material and technological level. But then again - if necessary.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 22 September 2015 21: 44 New
            +1
            The idea of ​​transferring the radar to an external medium is unlikely to be realized.
            It seems to me that bulky add-ons will be abandoned only after shipborne over-the-horizon radar stations (ZGRLS) appear, for example, there is a “Sunflower” - a short-range short-range over-the-horizon radar station. Designed to detect surface and air targets at a distance of 450 km.
            1. SIvan
              SIvan 26 September 2015 19: 38 New
              0
              Quote: Dart2027
              The idea of ​​transferring the radar to an external medium is unlikely to be realized.
              It seems to me that bulky add-ons will be abandoned only after shipborne over-the-horizon radar stations (ZGRLS) appear, for example, there is a “Sunflower” - a short-range short-range over-the-horizon radar station. Designed to detect surface and air targets at a distance of 450 km.

              I doubt that compact ZGRLS will appear at all.
              Over-the-horizon radar is a huge field with dozens or hundreds of antennas spaced a distance.
              Here is a sunflower. How do you place it on a ship?
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 23 February 2017 12: 34 New
                0
                Quote: SIvan
                I doubt that compact ZGRLS will appear at all.

                The technique is developing and what will be impossible to predict in the future. Now there are none, I did not say that the Sunflower can be set right now, but it is quite possible that such will appear in 10 or 20 years. In general, this is the case when they say that we will wait and see.
            2. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 23 February 2017 12: 09 New
              0
              With the current state of the headlamps, which fit quietly into the nose cone of the F-16 or T50, is there any sense in aerostat radars?
              Mast devices, with appropriate reinforcements, can provide themselves with a lift of the antenna array to a height of 100 m or more and compensation of oscillations from pitching to 5 points.
              I do not think that design teams are not able to solve the problem of space survey with minimal mass costs. Here, for sure, something else.
              For example, okay, IEE was raised on the knee mast by 100m. Provided the horizon to 45 km.
              And the nearest air defense systems? They also need a horizon away, antennas higher. VHF connected equipment, too, the higher you set it, the further you hear ... Yes, and one HBO antenna, without redundancy, will cost too much in case of breakage or damage. So two, and preferably three hundred-meter masts + the same amount for communication and nearby air defense systems ... And what is the result? not a ship, but some kind of hedgehog in the fog?
              Then, already, as an option, it is necessary to equip all Navy units with a set of dozens of the same type of reconnaissance UAVs, something like Ka-32, each of which weighs a couple of tons, with a set of headlights for all-round visibility and a radio-relay telecode line of communication with the ship. Helicopter type, preferably with electric traction and the possibility of hanging over the ship for 3-4 hours. The battery is exhausted - they lifted the replacement device, it broke down - replaced with a backup one.
              In this case, the antenna height can also be raised to at least 3 km (there, by the way, the vortex flows are weaker, it’s easier to ensure the accuracy of determining their own coordinates and to control the beam and a larger viewing radius). And the reliability of reconnaissance due to multiple redundancy is higher, secrecy, again, the “rope” also has an EPR, but here there is one PP beam, practically without side lobes. (Or a laser, as an option)
        2. Santa Fe
          23 September 2015 06: 43 New
          0
          Quote: lelikas
          I wonder why the tethered balloon from Lockheed 56K, with a payload of 363 kg, has a length of 33 meters?

          I have not heard about this

          here is jlens
          length 70 meters, working height 3 kilometer (where the air density is 1,5 times lower than that of the surface), payload (2 radar) 1600 kg

          in my case this is not necessary
          lifting height 100 meters
          radar weight less than 100 kg
      2. sniper
        sniper 22 September 2015 12: 35 New
        +5
        Quote: avt
        Something happened ... maybe he ate something?

        Yeah ... Not an article characteristic of Oleg. But she made me happy, thinks positively and, as always, is beautifully written.
        Now to the topic of the article. With a balloon, perhaps, really bust, a helicopter hanging constantly really gobble up all the fuel along with motor resources. But there must be a way out. For example, a helicopter-type drone with an electric motor with power supply via cable from a ship. That is, instead of a balloon, attach a spinner (quadrocopter) or something else like that. Autonomous batteries should be enough for an emergency landing in the event of a power failure. And to raise a real turntable only if it detects a target ... Well, something like that, offhand ...
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 22 September 2015 14: 38 New
          0
          Quote: sniper
          For example, a helicopter-type drone with an electric motor with power supply via cable from a ship.

          Calculate how much the cable will weigh! smile
          1. sniper
            sniper 22 September 2015 18: 55 New
            +2
            Quote: Bayonet
            Calculate how much the cable will weigh

            Duc, depending on how much to lift .... It is a question of reducing the height of the superstructure of the ship, if I did not confuse anything. So it’s possible to raise the antenna. and leave the weight of the cable within reasonable limits.
          2. Santa Fe
            23 September 2015 06: 53 New
            +3
            Quote: Bayonet
            Calculate how much the cable will weigh!

            200 meter
            1 ... 2 kg / meter

            in the short term:
            it is fashionable to serve food remotely - microwave radiation, since the range is only 100-200 meters
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 24 September 2015 07: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              200 meter
              1 ... 2 kg / meter

              Hardly. What power should the device be capable of lifting not only itself, but also a sufficiently powerful radar with an antenna? It should be not just a cable, but also a cable withstanding large dynamic loads. It’s not worth talking about microwave radiation at all - you need to transmit very large power and, accordingly, have a receiving antenna with receiving and converting equipment (and this is an additional weight), and how will the radar of the device, to which the microwave radiation stream of wild power is directed, work? smile
        2. avt
          avt 22 September 2015 16: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: sniper
          . Well, something like that, offhand ...

          Quote: avt
          WWII submarine gyroplane

          I forgot to add, well, this is to
          Quote: sniper
          For example, a helicopter-type drone with an electric motor with power supply via cable from a ship. That is, instead of a balloon, attach a spinner (quadrocopter) or something else like that. Autonomous batteries should be enough for an emergency landing in the event of a power failure.

          They raised it, it seems, without dvigla, like snakes. Screw freewheeling untwisted, if memory serves. In there, the letnab had fun with the prospect of staying in the water during an urgent dive about which he would practically command himself according to the results of observation. laughing
          1. Serg koma
            Serg koma 23 September 2015 18: 14 New
            +1
            "It was, it was, it was ... But it passed"
            For anti-submarine patrols, “K” series airships were more often used ... The first of the serial airships went into operation in March 1953. ... series "K" were built 14 airships ZP-4K (later ZSG-4). ... The peak of post-war construction was reached by mid-1957.
            By this time, the radar was no longer a wonder, and the carrying capacity of the airships made it possible to lift the necessary equipment. QUESTION - why have you refused ???
            About "weapons not used" during a storm of more than 5 points.
            Yes, weapons may not be used, but this does not mean that the ship must remain blind to the approaching threat of defeat !!! So the “ball” hanging around the karma of the vessel above the water (or something else tied with a cable) is hardly capable of ensuring the safety of the ship. The higher the stroke / wind, the lower will be the uncontrolled air body on the cable. The use of a controlled system will lead to a heavier structure and, as a consequence, to an increase in size.
            The use of aircraft has weather restrictions tongue
            My suggestion-
            telescopic antenna
      3. Old_Python
        Old_Python 22 September 2015 13: 59 New
        0
        "He's hiding !!!" (with) bully
    3. Falcon
      Falcon 22 September 2015 09: 16 New
      +3
      The British proposed something similar on a promising destroyer.

      Only a balloon needs its own propulsion
      1. Santa Fe
        22 September 2015 09: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: Falcon
        Only a balloon needs its own propulsion

        Cable
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 22 September 2015 09: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Cable

          There will be problems with the cable at speed. Too lagging. And if also the wind.
          1. Santa Fe
            22 September 2015 09: 35 New
            +1
            Quote: Falcon
            There will be problems with the cable at speed.

            Will not

            also, as there were no problems with sails
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 22 September 2015 09: 48 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: Falcon
              There will be problems with the cable at speed.

              Will not

              also, as there were no problems with sails


              Sails were attached from above too
              1. Santa Fe
                22 September 2015 09: 53 New
                +3
                Quote: Falcon
                Sails were attached from above too

                Sails have an area of ​​thousand square meters. m

                What ships in 10 000 tons moved

                The largest sailboat ever built was France II, the 5 masted French sailboat created in 1911 to transport South American nickel ore. The hull length reached 146 m, displacement over 10,5 thousand tons, and 5 steel masts carried 38 sails with a total area of ​​6350m².
                1. brn521
                  brn521 22 September 2015 11: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Sails have an area of ​​thousand square meters. m. That ships of 10 tons were moved

                  These were specialized ships with masts, ballast, low-speed. Besides, taking reefs or lowering the upper sails was not a problem for them. Could even go under some storm staysail, if it locks.
            2. brn521
              brn521 22 September 2015 11: 21 New
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              also, as there were no problems with sails

              There have always been problems with sails. But that is not the point. Somehow I can hardly imagine a balloon teleporting on a leash, even if not at 30 knots, but at economical 20 or even 15 nodes. Very much windage and high aerodynamic load. Add a moderate or fresh wind (sea ships or what?), Another 15-20 knots. And without an aerostat, your iron will not be able to, without it, in comparison with ordinary ships, it will be almost blind.
          2. Mera joota
            Mera joota 22 September 2015 11: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Falcon
            There will be problems with the cable at speed. Too lagging. And if also the wind.

            Americans tested the Raven Aerostar on the USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1), judging by the photo on the go.
            There is a lot of fota
            http://www.navy.mil/gallery_search_results.asp
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 22 September 2015 14: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Mera Joota
              Americans tested the Raven Aerostar on the USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1), judging by the photo on the go.
              There is a lot of fota
              http://www.navy.mil/gallery_search_results.asp


              The link does not open request
          3. Mera joota
            Mera joota 22 September 2015 11: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Falcon
            There will be problems with the cable at speed. Too lagging. And if also the wind.

            Americans tested the Raven Aerostar on the USNS Spearhead (JHSV 1), judging by the photo on the go.
            There is a lot of fota
            http://www.navy.mil/gallery_search_results.asp
          4. Igor K
            Igor K 22 September 2015 12: 46 New
            +1
            The flight altitude will decrease, you can put in principle electric motors and power them through a cable cable.
        2. dudinets
          dudinets 22 September 2015 09: 39 New
          +2
          the trouble is that a strong wind is very likely in the sea, which will wind the balloon with the radar so that, because of the danger to the ship, it will have to be set free. and pray in anticipation of an enemy rocket.
          1. Santa Fe
            22 September 2015 09: 51 New
            +1
            Quote: Dudinets
            a strong wind is very likely in the sea,

            already answered a third time
            a balloon is useless in bad weather

            the ship can’t use the weapon in a storm, when it rolls over 5-6 points
            1. brn521
              brn521 22 September 2015 12: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              the ship can’t use the weapon in a storm, when it rolls over 5-6 points

              The problem here is not the use of weapons, but the stability of observation. In general, not an aerostat is needed, but an airship. As far as I understand, with an electric drive and with a sufficiently rigid structure to exclude deformation with an oncoming flow of 60 km / h or something like that. Perhaps something like this has already been invented and even somehow called, but certainly not a balloon.
    4. marlin1203
      marlin1203 22 September 2015 09: 51 New
      +2
      Yeah! And for each balloon on the "rope"! laughing soldier But seriously, with the current level of development of drones in the United States, they will constantly have such an unmanned target indicator with a radar above the aug, that's all.
      1. Igor K
        Igor K 22 September 2015 12: 52 New
        0
        The drone will have to carry both the emitter and the receiver and the signal processing and the transmitter and still feed it all.
        This is not a technical solution.
        An aerostat or an airship with washing through a cable is more expedient and cheaper.
        Our asymmetric response to the adversary, helped in World War II, will help now.
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 22 September 2015 14: 52 New
          +2
          Quote: Igor K
          Aerostat or airship with cable washing

          What does it mean through the cable? It should be a cable with several wires, capable of withstanding significant current and voltage, strong enough to withstand dynamic loads and at the same time light! That's when you combine all these requirements in a "cable" - then you can get down to business. hi
          1. Assistant
            Assistant 22 September 2015 21: 41 New
            +1
            strong enough to withstand dynamic loads


            Let me add, constant alternating dynamic loads in a wide range in all conceivable directions. And with more to ensure the constancy of the current parameters and noise immunity of the signal.
        2. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 23 February 2017 12: 28 New
          0
          With the modern development of energy sources?
          Well, let the UAV be with the usual engine on gasoline ... The main thing is to raise the antenna and transmit data to the ship to the command center. What kind of thrust will be provided by a helicopter-type UAV is absolutely unimportant. The main thing is that you can hang a few hours above the ship. Well, and accordingly, the ship needs a hangar, in which there will be a dozen more clones of this reconnaissance. UAV. It may not be very large - a ton or two, a rotating HEADLIGHT + radio relay or a laser system for transmitting information to a ship. Naturally extra weight on the turret for fixing the beam and the UAV position control system. But all this is solvable. And the motor power is enough to ensure the flight, and to power the electronics. Of course, decent storage tanks for fuel are needed on the carrier, but since the author is talking about reducing the mass of add-ons, will it not be for the fuel tank?
    5. War and Peace
      War and Peace 22 September 2015 11: 52 New
      0
      in short, does the author suggest placing antennas on balloons and helicopters? Helicopters will not hang around the ship around the clock, they will devour all the fuel and their resources, and aerostats, I can imagine the Amer military fleet with ships, each of which hangs over its head in a balloon Bumbarash is resting.
      In general, the inventor of radio Popov at the dawn of radio transmitters and receivers discovered the properties of the antenna, the higher the antenna, the more stable the radio communications, but for some reason no one in the world from the military, either on land or at sea, used balloons with attached antennas. That is the question WHY? Probably because such a ball on a rope not only enhances radio communications and reconnaissance, but also DEMASES an object. In short, if before the military could use balls for radio communications and did not use, then there were reasons ...
    6. Alexey M
      Alexey M 22 September 2015 11: 53 New
      0
      It’s precisely because of the cost that such ships need to be booked. It would be a shame to lose a steamship at the cost of several tons of hundreds of pieces of paper due to the stoned suicide bombers on a rubber boat.
  2. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 22 September 2015 06: 52 New
    +1
    Interesting, but we must try to evaluate not only the mass, but also the volume.
  3. Alex_59
    Alex_59 22 September 2015 06: 57 New
    +3
    Oleg, what is your education? Honestly interesting! To be on equal terms I will say for myself - I am a radio electronics engineer.
    It is interesting that they would answer your calculations in the 1th NII CRI ...
    1. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 08: 40 New
      +2
      specialty 150301

      I work as a waiter. What will be more difficult
      1. Santa Fe
        22 September 2015 08: 48 New
        +2
        Six sheets of real bullshit by heart
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 22 September 2015 09: 04 New
      +6
      Clear. Not wanting to offend you - this explains something. It’s just that a person who unfolded the antenna mast in the wind tunnel and in the rain is unlikely to offer sailors to do similar exercises, but with a balloon. And in much worse conditions, also in cramped ship conditions, and in pitching. Somewhere in the winter during a storm in the Bay of Biscay when deploying such an aerostat there will be so many three-story mat ... and the result is not guaranteed.
      1. Santa Fe
        22 September 2015 09: 32 New
        -2
        Quote: Alex_59
        in the storm

        Why a balloon in a storm

        A ship can’t use a weapon anyway (already with the excitement of 5-6 points)
        Quote: Alex_59
        unfolding the antenna mast in the wind tunnel and in the rain is unlikely to offer sailors to do similar exercises, but with a balloon

        you have to deal with sails before
        and now automation

        about the wind at launch - you can choose the desired course, as aircraft carriers do
    3. Alex_59
      Alex_59 22 September 2015 09: 53 New
      +6
      Why a balloon in a storm

      A ship can’t use a weapon anyway (already with the excitement of 5-6 points)
      Well, you try to work at night in the rain on the deck when rolling in 4 points (friendly rolling), and then we will discuss. And about the impossibility of using weapons in 5 points, you tell the sailors, let them laugh. Who measures these points there when they solve a combat mission?
      you have to deal with sails before
      and now automation
      No problem. Can you imagine the size of the balloon? Make a closed hangar 50x30 meters on the ship, where it can be deployed, filled with gas, and sent through the drop-down roof - then everything will be ok. Only one question - what kind of ship is it that has a closed hangar 50x30? Only the RCC “Moscow”, the 1123 project, comes to mind. How many of them has our fleet mastered must I recall?
      You did not think of a balloon as a radar carrier, and this is certainly promising, but in practice it’s not yet feasible for destroyer-class ships. In addition, if in a combat situation your balloon breaks - hello all. So the balloon does not remove the need for high elevated radar posts, although it gives new opportunities.
      1. Santa Fe
        22 September 2015 10: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: Alex_59
        Well, you try to work at night in the rain on the deck when rolling in 4 points

        the trawl usually rose in the morning
        there were six of us, with a captain who rarely helped

        but on the contrary, we didn’t want to take unnecessary crew, less people - more money
        Quote: Alex_59
        And about the impossibility of using weapons in 5 points, you tell the sailors, let them laugh.

        What is so funny

        missiles cannot go off the rails, and guns cannot fire with heavy rolling
        Quote: Alex_59
        which has a closed hangar 50x30

        why is such a giant needed
        Quote: Alex_59
        Can you imagine the size of the balloon?

        there are preparing weather balloons for 20 kilometers

        and we need only 100-200 meters

        Airship lift = Fa - g * (airship mass with cable and fiber cable ~ 200 m in length)

        Archimedes force Fa = (air density at atmospheric pressure - helium density) * (total airship volume) * g
        Quote: Alex_59
        In addition, if in a combat situation your balloon breaks - hello all

        But what if the turbine of a power plant breaks down?

        ridiculous argument
        1. brn521
          brn521 22 September 2015 13: 03 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          there are preparing weather balloons for 20 kilometers

          These are cheap disposable balls that fly in the wind.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Airship lift

          So still an airship. Those. not at all what is pictured, not light and not one-time. What design?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Fa - g * (the mass of the airship together with a cable and a fiber optic cable ~ 200 m long)

          Part of this force will eventually go to the fight against air resistance. Unless to stop to start and wait until the calm is established. The stronger the incoming flow, the more the airship will deviate, the greater the cable length will be required to reach the same 200m. Well, and the additional load, the cable cable will have to be made more durable.
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 22 September 2015 14: 58 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          why is such a giant needed

          And how much will a sufficiently powerful radar with antennas and other household equipment weigh, plus a cable cable? smile
      2. 17085
        17085 22 September 2015 10: 42 New
        +1
        Oleg is a thousand times right. and your criticism falls apart easily ...
        a balloon is an example of an already tested promising system ... let's say - not the best shape is chosen ...
        How do you like this option
      3. yehat
        yehat 22 September 2015 13: 33 New
        0
        I advise you to study the American experience with blimps
        then you can reason more adequately
    4. Alex_59
      Alex_59 22 September 2015 10: 20 New
      0
      the trawl usually rose in the morning
      and there were six of us, with a captain who rarely helped
      Well done. I respect you. Well then we ask silly questions?
      missiles can't get off the rails
      "can not" or "impossible" is not the same thing.
      why is such a giant needed
      Weight of the proposed radar?
      But what if the turbine of a power plant breaks down?
      ridiculous argument
      One single turbine or one of four? If the only one I ask for examples of such power plants, I myself do not know such. Do not offer nuclear submarines, there is backup electric propulsion.
      1. Santa Fe
        22 September 2015 10: 45 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        "can not" or "impossible" is not the same thing.

        Restriction on use when rolling, a known and obvious thing

        what is surprising here?
        Quote: Alex_59
        Weight of the proposed radar?

        aircraft H010 Beetle from the MiG-35
        240 kg

        but it will be much easier for us, because we don’t need to highlight missile targets and generally do what a fighter radar does. less range and less radiated power
        Quote: Alex_59
        One single turbine or one of four?

        The crew will take pleasure in stale buckwheat
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 22 September 2015 14: 55 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          aircraft H010 Beetle from the MiG-35
          240 kg


          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          but it will be much easier for us, because we don’t need to highlight missile targets and generally do what a fighter radar does. less range and less radiated power


          Is it enough? How not to highlight if you need to shoot down?
          The beetle sees a tank on the background of the earth at a distance of 30-40 km (I will not look for accurate data)
          But when he sees a rocket against the background of water then ?!
          1. Santa Fe
            23 September 2015 06: 56 New
            +1
            Quote: Falcon
            Is it enough?

            The beetle is redundant

            enough helicopter AN / APY-147
            Quote: Falcon
            How not to highlight if you need to shoot down?

            modern missiles have an active seeker; no ground illumination is required
            Quote: Falcon
            when he sees a rocket against the background of water ?!

            against the horizon
            helicopter, centimeter - will see at a distance of 40 km

            as required
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 23 September 2015 09: 27 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              modern missiles have an active seeker; no ground illumination is required


              GOS at the final stage. ESSM and SM-2 lead radar. SM-6 also uses semi-active guidance when attacking targets with low EPR, which is RCC.

              Is it worth relying on a small plate of GOS when you can give your soul to God in a minute?

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              against the horizon
              helicopter, centimeter - will see at a distance of 40 km


              I agree, but if the P-800 flies. The reaction time is 1 minute. Isn't it better to have AN / SPY-3 and a decent margin of time?
              1. Santa Fe
                24 September 2015 01: 28 New
                0
                Quote: Falcon
                . ESSM and SM-2 radar

                ESSM last century
                Quote: Falcon
                . SM-6 also uses semi-active guidance when attacking targets with low EPR, which is RCC.

                lie
                Quote: Falcon
                Isn't it better to have AN / SPY-3 and a decent margin of time?

                where does the SPY-3 have a time margin

                tooltip - the earth is round
    5. Alex_59
      Alex_59 22 September 2015 12: 01 New
      +3
      aircraft H010 Beetle from the MiG-35
      240 kg

      That's right, I also thought about her. It will be easier, but there will be either four to shine in all directions, or one, but rotating. And it will be more real Furke-E, the weight of the antenna part in 860 kg. All of course rude and roughly. Duck, I don’t know about you, but I have an aerostat with a payload capacity of 860 kg that turns from 30 to 40 meters in length, even kill it. Example - http://rosaerosystems.ru/aero/obj7
      That requires a hangar at least slightly larger than the "product", i.e. 35-50 meters of length. That's when a radar similar to Fourka will weigh not 860 kg, but 200-300, then it will be real.

      The crew will take pleasure in stale buckwheat
      Not a “stop factor." Oborutsya, but win.
      1. opus
        opus 22 September 2015 20: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        What requires a hangar at least slightly larger than the "product"

        For a balloon, airship, or paraglider with a radar station, there is one more problem: a necessary condition for “working as it should” is to know (in real time) the coordinates of the radar station irradiating the controlled space, with an accuracy of angular coordinates “" ”(I don’t remember anymore).
        And if on a ship with a rigidly mounted radar it is simple (and the distance from the radar to the launcher is a "fixed value"), then how will it be with a dangling balloon-xs.
        ---------------------------------------
        I don’t know about sea wolves, but the topographic and geodetic reference of the positions of the RTV and ZRV divisions is MANDATORY.

        C-125
        .
        determination of the X, Y coordinates of the absolute heights of the standing points of the PSNR cabin and the antenna of the SEC

        determination of true azimuths from an additional starting point on the SNR;

        When firing with an automated control system, the coordinates X, Y of the position of the control unit part (radar, radar) with an accuracy of 20 m are additionally determined and the bases and true azimuths between the control center (radar, radar) and missile defense are calculated according to their coordinates, and also the ORP are determined;

        determination of the coordinates X, Y of the cockpit of P SNR, landmarks (Op) of observation points and benchmarks (P) in areas of the likely occurrence of ground targets;

        determination of distances from MIS to landmarks and benchmarks and their excess;

        excess of the main direction of fire in the absence of landmarks on the ground;

        determination of closing angles exceeding 20 ¢ or flight of radar invisibility in areas of possible target appearance.
        1. Svetlana
          Svetlana 22 September 2015 22: 34 New
          -1
          We will have to put together a radar and a gyro-stabilized platform on a tethered drone (airship, paraglider, synchrocopter). Then there will be knowledge (in real time) of the coordinates of the radar irradiating the controlled space. You can also place equipment similar to GPS / GLONASS smartphones receivers on board the drone. But it will have to receive signals from three emitters spaced in space, located not in space on satellites, but on board the ship from which the tethered drone was launched.
  4. Koshchei
    Koshchei 22 September 2015 06: 59 New
    +3
    There is, there is some deceit in all these games with loads, after all, not one mass matter. The most critical volumes now are electronics and automation. If a thousand people can be rammed into her cubicles like herring, then this will not work with soulless iron, each remote-controlled valve is at least twice as large. Any equipment needs service areas, and how much heat it emits! Organization of a heat sink requires a powerful and extensive ventilation system. Yes, it’s not so much in terms of loads, but what volumes on the ship are devouring!
    1. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 08: 09 New
      +4
      Quote: Koshchei
      The most critical volumes now are electronics and automation

      The creators of C-400 say the opposite


      All the "electronics" fit on three MZKT-7930 chassis (length - 12 meters, load capacity - 24 tons)

      Sand on the background of the ship

      Truck and Cruiser Ticonderoga


      ps / anti-aircraft systems - the most complex component of weapons, requiring the most computing power and equipment
      Quote: Koshchei
      each remote-controlled valve is at least twice as large

      write nonsense
      Compare power windows and paddles in old cars
      Quote: Koshchei
      Organization of a heat sink requires a powerful and extensive ventilation system.

      The creators of C-400 somehow met 20 tons
  5. inkass_98
    inkass_98 22 September 2015 07: 54 New
    +3
    A balloon is the most obvious way to solve the problem of increasing the radio horizon, but here the issue of all-weather comes into play. Not in every fresh weather this pepelats can be launched.
    Departing from the topic, but not from Oleg :). I remember that in earlier articles Oleg simply admired Zamvolt, and then suddenly such a turn! But this is so, by the way.
    Thanks for the article. At heart, I have always been a supporter of armored ships, it is somehow customary to perceive a ship as a combat unit protected by armor.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 22 September 2015 09: 00 New
      +6
      Quote: inkass_98
      A balloon is the most obvious solution to the problem of increasing the radio horizon,

      Recently I watched the program. We are seriously working on the construction and development of aerostats, both civilian and to help the military, from electronic search and electronic warfare systems to hunting submarines. Busy, I will tell you the program.


      Quote: inkass_98
      I remember that in earlier articles Oleg simply admired Zamvolt.

      Zimvolt, like the Sea Wolf, are very expensive toys, with real military operations the roads are doubtful and their effectiveness. Let's say several BrahMos or Onyx are still cheaper than this floating wunderwaffle. hi
    2. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 09: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: inkass_98
      Not in every fresh weather this pepelats can be launched.

      No need to run in the storm

      Weapons and missiles also have limitations (if you worry over 5-6 points, any ship becomes unworkable.
      just admired Zamvolt,

      objectively, this is the best that is today
      future technology demonstrator

      but frankly, this is the road to nowhere
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 22 September 2015 13: 06 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        No need to run in the storm

        Weapons and missiles also have limitations (if you worry over 5-6 points, any ship becomes unworkable.

        Hello Oleg. Theory is of course a good thing, but it often breaks down into practice. A small example ... when leaving Sevastopol’s Northern Bay, the lamb just begin to play in the waves, and on the approach to the turning point at the Khersonessky lighthouse, the excitement already reaches 6-8 points. T.u. RTO Samum can safely bullet from the Quarantine into your boat with 90% hit success !!!!
    3. yehat
      yehat 22 September 2015 13: 40 New
      +1
      and no one says that the balloon is the solution to all issues
      however, in a storm, ships do not always go to sea and are even less likely to fight
      therefore, a balloon will cover a very large share of the needs.
      Further, in addition to the aerostat, you can use other devices - like a kite in tow, using aerodynamic maneuvers to stabilize according to the example of correction of control of the Su-27.
      in any case, balloons can help a long-range ship order, they, unlike helicopters, are capable of long patrol
      1. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 22 September 2015 14: 53 New
        0
        .... unlike helicopters, capable of long patrols ...

        ... And who is stopping the same helicopter from supplying power via a cable ????? ... lol
        1. Assistant
          Assistant 22 September 2015 21: 51 New
          +1
          ... And who prevents the same helicopter from supplying power via a cable-rope ????? ... lol


          1) The lack of a fully-developed helicopter model at full electric propulsion, capable of carrying a radar surface view.
          2) The lack of a well-developed model of an inconspicuous helicopter capable of carrying a surface radar (Comanche did not fly further than the prototype), because shining like a beacon in the radar and optical ranges against the background of a radiopaque sky, being tied to a stealth ship, is a rather sophisticated perversion.
  6. sevtrash
    sevtrash 22 September 2015 07: 56 New
    0
    The problem, as it were, is artificial, for the sake of the article. Weapons are changing - ships are changing. The natural (if you can call it that) evolution of weapons of destruction. As for balloons - also the past. Instead, satellites and UAVs.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 08: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      Weapons are changing - ships are changing.

      What does it mean to change

      previous displacement, combat load decreased
      and this is the result of 70 years of progress!
      Quote: sevtrash
      Instead, satellites and UAVs

      The satellite cannot hang over the ship

      Due to the Earth’s own rotation, the satellite, having made one revolution, will be thousands of kilometers from the place over which it flew for the first time. In order to be able to regularly (at least every half hour) inspect the same area of ​​the ocean surface An orbital grouping of thousands of satellites will be required.

      Heavy naval UAVs MQ-4C Triton (Global Haw development) with a flight duration of 32 hours are an interesting and promising option. Acting from a coastal base, they could accompany ships in the combat zone. But they are vulnerable and the hour of their flight costs thousands of dollars. Moreover, at a speed of 600 km / h it also cannot constantly hang over the ship. Because Americans chose JLENS balloons

      RQ-4 Global Hawk
      1. brn521
        brn521 22 September 2015 13: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Because Americans chose JLENS balloons

        http://topwar.ru/39076-kompleks-jlens-aerostat-s-rls-i-chastnaya-zhizn.html -
        "the use of balloons with radar stations is 5-7 times cheaper than the operation of several aircraft with similar characteristics"
        Those. very expensive compared to stationary antennas. We are talking about giants in 74m long and with a lifting capacity of 3 tons. They feed and transmit data via cable. Rise height 4,5 km. Range of detection of air targets 550km. Development cost $ 4 billion and has not yet been completed. Those. this is not a meteorological probe on the knee to rivet.
      2. sevtrash
        sevtrash 22 September 2015 14: 14 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The satellite cannot hang over the ship

        I'm talking about the system. It is unlikely that anyone strongly doubts that the Americans are able to control the location of more or less significant weapons of the Navy (and not only) of Russia and China in real time. Of course, this does not imply a "hanging" of the satellite over a particular unit of the Navy. There is also a room / rooms in the Pentagon and in a bunch of places displaying information about military facilities, where information comes from satellites, as well as drones, nuclear submarines, aircraft, etc. etc. A balloon is not needed here. Well, in which case it is possible to correct the orbit of satellites or launch a space plane from a Boeing.
        And for additional exploration - please launch the UAV. Moreover, Zamvolt will not walk alone, in a group. If AUG - and Hokai to help, plus Virginia or Sivolph or Los Angeles. It seems like Astutes from the shores of Britain determine the ships off North America, so is Virginia worse?
        And to compare directly on the payload - I don’t know. If you brought a table in which you would include comparative data on the combat load and, most importantly, what do you include in the combat load between the "old" and "new" ships.
        Well - ships are created for certain tasks, it is unlikely that the very Americans designed and built ships that these tasks cannot be solved with the weapons that are placed in it. Is it good or bad if less than a kilogram / pound of weapons can be spent to destroy a target?
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2015 06: 58 New
          0
          Quote: sevtrash
          It is unlikely that anyone strongly doubts that the Americans are able to control the location of more or less significant weapons of the Navy (and not only) of Russia and China in real time

          No, it’s impossible physically

          for the above reasons
  7. gregor6549
    gregor6549 22 September 2015 08: 17 New
    +2
    In my unenlightened opinion, the author was somewhat carried away by load issues, forgetting that the US Navy sought to create a fundamentally new ship using a large number of new, previously unused technologies, equipment, design solutions, etc. In addition, when creating such ships, the Customer (which is ours, that is foreign ) does not always clearly imagine what tasks this one should solve and how exactly it also becomes clear in the process of creating the ship (if it is clear).
    At the same time, many technical difficulties arise, which inevitably lead to an increase in the cost of the ship and to a delay in the time of its construction. The issue of cost is compounded by the fact that instead of the estimated number of ships of this class, the leadership of the US Navy was forced to limit them to a smaller number, again because the value of the ship went beyond the approved budget.
    By the way, in the US Navy itself, many consider this decision a big mistake. No matter how many technologies and design solutions that have been applied and worked out on the ship are successfully used to create a number of promising ships. These are the new universal installations for the vertical launch of missiles of various classes, and the active phased arrays of radars for various purposes, and the new architecture of a single information-control complex that allows the automation of control processes for all ship systems and significantly reduces the number of crew members, etc. Again, with the creation of the ship was fully used by computer simulation and the most advanced computer graphics programs at that time, allowing at an early stage x design to optimize the placement of equipment in the compartments of the ship and avoid undesirable "intersection" of various communications (pipelines, cables, etc.) and most importantly minimize the numerous alterations that accompany the construction of almost any ship with a serious displacement. It is hardly possible to suspect ship designers of some dullness or illiteracy. Perhaps it will not be superfluous to read some materials on the ship under discussion. For example http://pentagonus.ru/publ/programma_sozdanija_ehsmincev_uro_novogo_pokolenija_ti
    pa_zamvolt_dlja_vms_ssha_2014/27-1-0-2555
  8. igordok
    igordok 22 September 2015 08: 19 New
    0
    From the point of view of radio engineering, what you call the director in the first figures is a reflector. Directors are generally smaller than a vibrator and reflector. True, there may be many. Reflectors are the most voluminous, hence the heaviest antenna elements.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 08: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: igordok
      From the point of view of radio engineering, what you call the director in the first figures is a reflector

      No, this is the director

      Stabilized post of the centralized artillery control system on the ships of World War II

      and the radio engineering terms in this case have nothing to do with
      1. scorpiosys
        scorpiosys 22 September 2015 12: 22 New
        0
        "The guide ..." ("... you are on the right track, comrades!")
      2. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 22 September 2015 14: 57 New
        +1
        ... A stabilized post of the centralized artillery control system on the ships of the Second World ....

        .... So they would have written - a rangefinder post .... At least for Gus it was called that ... hi
  9. Alex_59
    Alex_59 22 September 2015 08: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    previous displacement, combat load decreased
    and this is the result of 70 years of progress!

    The ammunition weight of the cruiser 68 bis was 232 tons or 1,75% of the standard displacement 13230 tons.
    The ammunition weight of the cruiser 1164 is 313 tons or 3,36% of the standard displacement 9300 tons

    In total, over the 30 years of progress, the share of the weight of weapons has grown 2 times, the displacement itself has been reduced almost 1,5 times.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 08: 56 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      Ammunition weight

      Combat load of a warship = payload for which weapons are considered, b / c, means of detection and suo, protection (if any)
  10. Engineer
    Engineer 22 September 2015 08: 46 New
    +1
    Well, the article and just finished off the picture at the end of the article with the signature ddg-1000, if ddg-1000 is Zavolt. Zamvolt has a powerful power plant, the propeller is fully electric, powerful generators have done for a reason. Zamvolt - will be the first platform for weapons based on new principles - railguns. When he makes the first salvo of such a gun, the author will be very offended by the title of his article.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 08: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      has a powerful power plant

      )))

      The power of the Zamvolt power plant is less than that of the cruiser Maxim Gorky arr. 1936
  11. Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 22 September 2015 08: 46 New
    +1
    What would we do without you! You are in the time of "having fun as I can," try to engage as a presidential adviser on the Navy. And what, I'm serious: and you entertainment, and the country benefit.
  12. Operator
    Operator 22 September 2015 09: 01 New
    +1
    Can the weight of the ballast be highlighted in the layout for the 26 bis cruiser and give the same layout for the modern US Navy cruiser?
    Thank you
  13. Alex_59
    Alex_59 22 September 2015 09: 09 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Alex_59
    Ammunition weight

    Combat load of a warship = payload for which weapons are considered, b / c, means of detection and suo, protection (if any)

    This is all rhetoric and you never know what is considered a combat load. I propose to calculate the weight of what really flies into the enemy and can hurt him. Those. the net weight of shells (without charges, barrels, etc.), the weight of missiles without launchers, torpedoes, etc. After all, the actual battleship is being built just for the sake of the shell that will fly, and the missile cruiser - for the sake of the rocket.
    Yes, this is a simplification, but it’s real to do, because we know the weight of the rockets and shells, and the weight of all radio equipment, their equipment, cable routes, etc. unknown to us.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 09: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      This is all rhetoric and you never know what is considered a combat load.

      all that is not a body with its valves, power plants and fuel

      Combat load = payload. What is the difference between warships. Weapons, ammunition, SLA, protection
      Quote: Alex_59
      Those. the net weight of shells (without charges, barrels, etc.), the weight of missiles without launchers, torpedoes, etc.

      You can’t take it that way, shells without charges and barrels are absurd
      Quote: Alex_59
      and the weight of all radio equipment, their equipment, cable routes, etc. unknown to us.

      known. And it is insignificant against the background of other load articles

      a striking example of C-400 fits on three mobile chassis
    2. scorpiosys
      scorpiosys 22 September 2015 12: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      Those. the net weight of shells (without charges, barrels, etc.), the weight of missiles without launchers, torpedoes, etc.

      Not smart ... Previously, shells and torpedoes needed to break armor, and modern shells-missiles only had to open cans.
      How can this be compared without regard to electronic means?
  14. Igor K
    Igor K 22 September 2015 09: 18 New
    +1
    The balloon as a means of increasing the range of the radio horizon has been asking for a long time, especially in recent times, against the background of a decrease in the mass-dimensional modern electronics and the emergence of new high-strength and light polymers.
    They raised it by one km and rejoice at the exclusion of the fact of the surprise attack by missiles by the enemy.
    On the balloon we place only antennas, washing and processing on the ship.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 22 September 2015 10: 22 New
      0
      Quote: Igor K
      They raised it by one km and rejoice at the exclusion of the fact of the surprise attack by missiles by the enemy.
      On the balloon we place only antennas, washing and processing on the ship.

      Wow, the attenuation in such a waveguide will also have to be drained, an interesting task, while the waveguide must also be flexible, it’s easier to hang the transmitter on the airship :-)
      1. Igor K
        Igor K 22 September 2015 10: 41 New
        0
        Optical fiber to help us comrade.
        On the airship we place the emitter and receiver.
        1. scorpiosys
          scorpiosys 22 September 2015 13: 01 New
          0
          Slurred, somehow you have your idea laid out in two lines. If you raise the minimum ...
          then the minimum, then it will not work.
          Antenna, transceiver (completely ...), buffer transmission schemes (DIGITAL, mandatory - DIGITAL !!!) of signals over a long cable, cables and power circuits (quite powerful!) ...
          Only final processing and indication can be left below. So, it will be so, like, "at a minimum."
          No, it doesn’t work ...
  15. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 22 September 2015 09: 41 New
    +8
    laughing good If you take into account the psychology, then Oleg Kaptsov VERY much want to prove that he is right, and a bunch of designers of today's ships are dumbass !!! The whole series of his articles is aimed at this! Sometimes even reading is interesting, in a cognitive sense wink At the same time, the ability to squeeze armor into today's realities is the sacred cow of all articles. And all these layouts come down to one thing - to prove something! And sometimes even answering his own questions, Oleg, not wanting to agree with him, still takes all the reasonable evidence aside, as they do not explain the lack of armor on today's ships ... winked
    I will not argue - it is useless wink
    Today's shipbuilders and designers BETTER ALL OF US, TOGETHER TAKEN know article loads of modern ships! They’d better know how to translate metal and plastic solutions that will ensure the receipt of the ordered characteristics of the ship! And if necessary, they will stick in the armor for protection! As soon as its usefulness is proved on this model of weapons! They know all the capabilities of anti-ship missiles, all the features of ensuring the unsinkability of a ship, all the features of anti-missile defense systems to protect against anti-ship missiles, all the capabilities of modern armor in opposing anti-ship missiles, etc.
    But only people like Oleg still float on their dreamy clouds and they won’t understand that the times are different, the possibilities are different, the approaches are different and the reality is far from the artillery battles of the cruisers request It won’t reach them that even if the weight loads of modern ships lose to the weight loads of the relics comparing them, the armament capabilities are such that artillery cruisers will be destroyed at such a distance that absolutely excludes the use of their artillery systems!
    Now other wars and ships for these wars are also being built different !!! Because the tasks are different, the possibilities are different, EVERYTHING ELSE !!!
    I would introduce an additional section on the site of the moderators - Alternative History. Then quite good "evidence" articles by Oleg Kaptsov could easily exist within this framework. Or place them in the "Opinion" section, then everyone will know that this is the opinion of one person that has the right to exist winked
    Plus article for incredible obstinacy lol
    This is my personal opinion hi
    1. Igor K
      Igor K 22 September 2015 10: 47 New
      +3
      Yes and no.
      A specialist differs from a non-specialist in that he knows the details, but at the same time the head full of details ceases to generate fundamentally new approaches, only combining the opinions of the first and second on one platform can give impetus to breakthrough ideas.
      The discussion platform of this site contributes to this.
      1. Old_kapitan
        Old_kapitan 22 September 2015 12: 07 New
        +2
        "The discussion site of this site contributes to this."
        Here are just some specials once read this fiction. They have their own discussion platforms.
        1. Igor K
          Igor K 22 September 2015 12: 55 New
          0
          At worst, we develop our own technical idea. "Do not catch up so warm up"))
    2. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 22 September 2015 11: 26 New
      +2
      Oleg does not argue that the old cannons are stronger than modern rocket ones, he asks a logical question - if the displacement has not changed, the mass has not changed, and the weight and dimensions of the weapons, FCS, propulsion systems have decreased, where is the supply of mass and volume spent?
    3. scorpiosys
      scorpiosys 22 September 2015 13: 14 New
      0
      Regarding the "sacred armor ...", because body armor in the early to mid-20th century was MASSIVE in the armies of different countries - ALSO NOT APPLIED !!! Ah sechias ??? Even in the post-Soviet Union, it is GREAT.
      What causes the need to arm fighters not, with some PM-kami, but rather stronger and stronger!
      The "second round" of the competition of armor and shell, straight - it turns out before our eyes ...
    4. brn521
      brn521 22 September 2015 13: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Today's shipbuilders and designers BETTER ALL OF US, TOGETHER TAKEN know article loads of modern ships!

      But we also want to get an idea of ​​what is being shoved into modern ships.
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Here are just such as Oleg still float on their dreamy clouds

      And they ask interesting questions. For which it would be interesting to get intelligible answers.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 22 September 2015 15: 54 New
        +2
        Quote: brn521
        But we also want to get an idea of ​​what is being shoved into modern ships.

        Or maybe it's secret? wink
        Quote: brn521
        And they ask interesting questions. For which it would be interesting to get intelligible answers.

        The less you know the better you sleep wink

        Oleg won’t be bothered by the lack of capital reservation on today's ships, and he is doing this and that, but he is still trying to prove that something is wrong here.
        Just in order to shift thinking in the right direction, I’ll also tell you the direction of the search for missing weight loads:
        For comparison, the difference in the number of crews of the same Zamvolt and the Chapaev cited as an example is more than 10 times - 148 against 1184 people. This is to ensure that a high level of automation! And it’s not necessary to say that all conveyors serving paper mechanisms wink
        We must not forget that part of the load is also consumed by service systems, which for some reason are forgotten. Different types of heaters, coolers, rolling stock dampers, etc. rubbish, which creates comfort and conditions for normal operation of both people and the main combat systems !!
        IT IS ALSO WEIGHT!
        And besides, no one will ever give you exact percentages in the layout of the weight of a particular ship! Because this is a godsend for the enemy, who on such data can draw conclusions about the characteristics of a particular ship!
        And games in someone who is smarter on the forums on the basis of very rough data are considered childish. Assumptions and alternativism ... It is useless, but for the stubborn to some extent pseudoscientific hi Although in order to console his own pride, and this will come down hi
        PS I could argue with many, but tired of this tyagomotin with disputes that is stronger than RCC or armor
        1. brn521
          brn521 23 September 2015 11: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Or maybe it's secret?

          Secret may be specifics. But not the general parameters.
          Quote: Rurikovich
          This is to ensure that a high level of automation!

          In the case of Zamvolt, savings played a significant role. Arly Berkov, according to Wikipedia, half of the operating costs were crew salaries. Those. reducing the crew by 2 times in the case of the US Navy gives a very healthy savings. This was to be the rationale for the increased costs of design and construction.
    5. g1v2
      g1v2 22 September 2015 21: 46 New
      0
      C'mon - why did everyone attack him so much. Man is a fan and has his own view on the development of the surface fleet. Is this a heresy? Well, so many breakthrough and not very ideas were ridiculed by experts, and then became trendsetters. It is possible that some inventions will immediately change the situation. For example, new types of radars will be invented, which can simply be raised like a radio antenna above a car. Who knows. request By the way, as an amateur, I also think that the BK of modern ships could be increased and that ship areas are spent inefficiently. True, I think the reason is more about carriage. Many areas are occupied to meet the needs of the crew - down to gyms. Sailors want comfort rather than sleeping in hammocks under the deck in turn. laughing But in my opinion, the trend will nevertheless be the construction of not huge wunderwafes, but submarines, flocks of ships of the third rank such as MRK, as carriers of cr and frigates of the second rank for the distant sea zone. I think that the issue of reducing the size and increasing the radar efficiency is a matter to be solved and will be resolved in the coming years (it is quite possible that we are). Honestly, personally, I do not see the need for a new bismarck if it can be sunk by a volley of missiles fired by a flock of inexpensive MRK. The whole idea is to release more cr than he can intercept, and increasing the reservation will only lead to the emergence of more powerful cr.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 22 September 2015 23: 46 New
        +1
        Yes, no one attacked him smile It is one thing when a person understands today's realities, understands the motives for creating certain classes of ships and simply expressed his opinion. You could put up with it wink
        But man stubbornly proves to everyone and everything that he is right and his ideas are right! At first it was interesting, after one article with hints. But in the comments there are almost a lot of prudent arguments. Not satisfied. He began to approach his problem from different angles. It seems to be interesting to read the author, who was upright in his innocence, but he is already becoming irritated. Even if academics will prove to him the basics of today's ship design, where do many expense items come from, why such characteristics, what are these characteristics based on and the weight of the ships associated with this, they will still be wrong, because there is no capital armor !! ! Oleg is better to know that any modern ship must have armor, because the high-explosive charges of the anti-ship missiles do not penetrate it, which will ensure the military stability of the ship. For example, citing the weight characteristics of ships of a bygone era! request
        There is perseverance, but there is obstinacy! And the line between these concepts is very thin! He had to be born in the heyday of the confrontation between armor and shell, somewhere between 1900 and 130gg. Then there was a wide field of activity for calculating the thickness of the armor depending on the displacement, goals, etc., characteristics of the ship ...
        And so, I respect, there are interesting articles, but you don’t need to be stubborn !!!! In the design bureau not first-graders are sitting, but people with educations, experience! And if you really want to know why modern ships do not have capital armor, isn’t it easier to persevere and achieve this kind of connection by giving requests to institutes and design bureaus than to be stubborn on the site, proving that you are right ...
        hi



        hi
        1. g1v2
          g1v2 23 September 2015 00: 27 New
          +1
          Enthusiasts often change the world. They think the mainstream that the earth is flat, and here some heretic of stupidity babbles that it is round. laughing If a person is so actively bending his line, then who knows - maybe he will build his wunderwaffle someday. bully Although, as I wrote in a previous comment, in the near future the trend will be much smaller types of ships. And if we take into account the course for maximum automation and crew reduction, then maybe we will still see ocean-going ships the size of a mr. Well, about kb. I myself am a design engineer, although I am not associated with the military industrial complex, but I work as a shift engineer in production. So with horror I imagine what I would have designed without the experience of real production. Yes, and so it is so unapproachable equipment that you wonder how it came up with a place. Many machines are designed for the mandatory call of the master from the manufacturer in case of serious problems. Most of the matyugs left me like Germany in Bosch, after I changed the thermocouple upside down. Apparently, according to their understanding, for this it was necessary to disassemble the half-machine and spend half a day on it. I managed in half an hour, crawled into the apparatus upside down. They dragged me from there by the legs. The sight was still that. lol PM designers too often hiccups.
  16. Alex_59
    Alex_59 22 September 2015 09: 58 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: Alex_59
    Those. the net weight of shells (without charges, barrels, etc.), the weight of missiles without launchers, torpedoes, etc.

    You can’t take it that way, shells without charges and barrels are absurd

    Not more absurd than many of your ideas :-) And why can't I think so? There, I calculated after all, not dividing by zero, it seemed to work out.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: Alex_59
    and the weight of all radio equipment, their equipment, cable routes, etc. unknown to us.

    known. And it is insignificant against the background of other load articles
    Prove it. I am waiting for the calculation of the weight of all radio electronics, antennas, communications and cables, equipment racks, their fasteners, computers, electric motors, etc. in relation to two ships - one armored artillery, the second modern missile. Please do not forget the weight of the calculator in the commander’s cabin.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 22 September 2015 10: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      And why can't I think so?

      Because you count shells without charges, and rockets for some reason with starting and marching engines :-)
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 22 September 2015 10: 30 New
        0
        If you add charges to the shells, the situation will not change dramatically, although of course this is probably true. But I don’t think about trunks, like missile launch containers.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 22 September 2015 11: 48 New
          +4
          Quote: Alex_59
          But I don’t think about trunks, like missile launch containers.
          It is interesting to read your polemic with Oleg, however, I would like to object to this point (Oleg missed this). Launching rocket containers and artillery barrels are unlikely to correctly "bring under one denominator." A lot depends on the artillery barrel, both the range and accuracy of shooting, and the initial velocity of the projectile. Even the same type of projectile, the same powder charge, but with the barrel length, say, in 30 calibers and 45 calibers, we get different values ​​in hitting the target. Missile mines do not have such values. If you want, the artillery barrel is more likely to be compared with a rocket engine than with a rocket shaft. In general, Oleg’s articles have a lot of interesting things, if our Navy had a serious analytical department that would monitor our discussions, and the articles themselves, probably for the fleet you could find fresh ideas and other, “non-dusty” aspects of perception.
    2. Santa Fe
      22 September 2015 10: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      Prove

      the article has masses of the main antennas
      Quote: Alex_59
      racks of equipment, their fasteners,

      a few hundred kilograms, nothing for a ship

      An example is the land mobile C-400. 20 tons for everything, including the antenna and massive struts
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 22 September 2015 10: 44 New
        +2
        the article has masses of the main antennas
        You are not basic, but do everything and do not forget anything. And not the antennas themselves, but all that is behind them too, including processing tools, power cables, data cables, etc.
        a few hundred kilograms, nothing for a ship
        I do not believe. No numbers.
        An example is the land mobile C-400. 20 tons for everything, including the antenna and massive struts
        What do you mean by C-400 and 20 tons? Illumination-guidance radar? And do you know what means are really given to the C-300 / 400 division for normal combat work? Diesel generators, switchgears. Then what do you mean by C-400? Division, regiment, a minimum set of tools for autonomous combat work? There is still a low-altitude detector on a prefabricated tower, there is a general detection radar, there are hardware communications, dofiga everything. Ship Fort weighs 200 tons. These are PUs on 64 missiles, on-load tap-changers, and SLAs without a general detection radar.
        1. Santa Fe
          22 September 2015 10: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          You are not basic, but do everything and do not forget anything. And not the antennas themselves, but all that is behind them too, including processing tools, power cables, data cables, etc.

          The mass of all of the above is so insignificant that they are placed in a superstructure the height of an 9-story building, without the risk of overturning the ship

          If you, having finished school and having received an engineering education, do not see the point in this - then what is there to argue about?
          Quote: Alex_59
          What do you mean by C-400 and 20 tons?

          General Radar
          NLC detection radar
          team post

          - it is in this configuration that it is present on the ship

          don’t tell about generators, a thousand-ton ship never has problems with this
          1. aleks 62 next
            aleks 62 next 22 September 2015 15: 17 New
            +4
            ..... If you, having finished school and having received an engineering education, do not see the point ...


            ... This is the right remark .... In relation to you ... To talk about stability issues, you need to at least have a minimum of knowledge (designing ships) .... Not always a lot of weight “On top” leads to loss of stability .... It is necessary to consider in the complex not only the weight "from above", but also the geometric characteristics of the sections of the ship and the overturning moments caused by this weight, together with the leveling ones .... Which depend to a large extent on the geometry and sections of the hull .... In general, there normalized values ​​for the design (they were always, even during the time of Peter the Great) according to the limiting roll, rolls, etc. .... You are not surprised, the same notorious "Mistral" - draft 5m, side height 15-18m and a bunch all transported gadgets (500 tons of tanks + a dozen helicopters, etc.) are quite high from the waterline .... And nothing ... Does not turn over ... hi
            1. Santa Fe
              23 September 2015 07: 02 New
              0
              Quote: aleks 62 next
              o and the geometric characteristics of the cross sections of the ship and the overturning moments caused by this weight, coupled with leveling ....

              The long cigar-shaped Ticonderoga has nothing to improve stability compared to the heavy WWII cruisers

              on the contrary, a large elongation housing for improved propulsive qualities
              Quote: aleks 62 next
              You are not surprised, the same notorious "Mistral" - draft 5m, side height 15-18m and a bunch of all transported bells and whistles (500t tanks + a dozen helicopters, etc.) are quite high from the waterline .... And nothing ... Doesn't roll over ...

              #
              Mistral has a width of 30 meters!
              and displacement in cargo over 20 thousand tons
              1. aleks 62 next
                aleks 62 next 23 September 2015 09: 26 New
                +1
                .... The long cigar-shaped Ticonderoga has nothing to improve stability compared to the heavy WWII cruisers ...

                .... A very speculative conclusion .... You do not take into account the shape and cross section of the underwater part of the ship .... And as I wrote, it means a lot .... Regarding propulsive qualities (Do you even know what it is? ) - not always a large elongation leads to a decrease in friction resistance (let’s say for simplicity) .... A typical example is a bulb in the nose of the underwater part, as a solution to the problem ...

                ..... And anyway, you have some kind of mess in your head - it all comes down to the concept of "I think so" .... I advise you, given your constant marine theme, to read at least in Wiki about what and how it affects stability and other parameters of the ship .... It is not difficult to understand and will not take much time .... I am not a shipowner, but in my youth I alone did not learn how to do a graduation project of a ship with all the calculations and drawings - that’s a little and studied the subject .. ..
                1. Santa Fe
                  24 September 2015 01: 34 New
                  0
                  Quote: aleks 62 next
                  . You do not take into account the shape and section of the underwater part of the ship ....

                  there is nothing to radically increase stability compared to WWII cruisers

                  narrow, long "cigar"
                  with the most common contours in the underwater hull
                  Quote: aleks 62 next
                  Regarding propulsive qualities (do you even know what it is?) - not always a large elongation leads to a decrease in friction resistance (

                  and sometimes leads

                  so, what is next?

                  where did the argument begin?
                  Quote: aleks 62 next
                  Not always a large weight “On top” leads to a loss of stability .... It is necessary to consider in the complex not only the weight “from above”, but also the geometric characteristics of the ship’s cross sections and the overturning moments caused by this weight, together with leveling moments .... Which depend on a greater least on the geometry and cross sections of the body ....

                  Tika in this sense is no different from WWII cruisers

                  it's not a trimaran and not a flat-bottomed barge
  17. Taoist
    Taoist 22 September 2015 10: 13 New
    +6
    Well, for starters, airships are not necessary ... a tethered UAV is enough - active stabilization systems have long been known and it’s not a problem to transfer energy to the screws via cable. Therefore, it can be a compact well streamlined sphere. In principle, we return to the idea of ​​a “ship-arsenal” and it is quite possible that it is semi-submerged or even built according to a catamaran scheme with submerged torpedo-shaped floats. Here, stealth technology and the provision of active and passive protection can work to its full potential.
  18. Operator
    Operator 22 September 2015 11: 03 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    aviation H010 Beetle from MiG-35 240 kg

    AN / APG-77 radar mounted on the F-22 fighter

    Detection range:
    aerial target with EPR 3 sq.m: 300 km
    aerial target with EPR 1 sq.m: 235 km
    cruise missile targets with EPR 0,1 sq.m: 150 km

    Equipment:
    weight 553,7 kg
    power 16,5 kW
    volume 0,565 cbm
    4,38 cooling air flow kg / min.
    coolant flow rate 33,9 l / min.

    AFAR:
    diameter 0,813 m
    weight 219,1 kg
    volume 0,275 cbm
    power dissipation 8,3 kW
    coolant flow rate 11,3 l / min
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2015 07: 04 New
      0
      Quote: Operator
      aerial target with EPR 3 sq.m: 300 km

      in my case 40

      and aerostat radar there is no need to highlight targets and program rocket autopilots
      1. Operator
        Operator 23 September 2015 23: 19 New
        +1
        F-22 fighter radar overlooks a narrow sector of space - approximately 90 angular piles. Detection of a cruise missile at a distance of 150 km is possible only upon transition to scanning in an even narrower sector of 10 angular degrees. The detection range of RCC in a wide sector is nine times less, i.e. 17 km, which can be considered the minimum target capture boundary (flight time 5 minutes).

        For all-azimuth space scanning, it will be necessary to install an AFAR radar on a rotating platform. Therefore, the weight of the radar of the ship, lifted on the airship, will be not less, but more than the weight of the radar of the A-22 fighter (> 773 kg). In addition, the weight of the cable connecting the airship to the ship must be added to the weight of the radar - the cable must include the electric part, the communication part and, most massive, the power part, which receives the aerodynamic load from the airship in a gust of wind.

        In the absence of a solid power part of the cable, the airship will regularly come off the leash.

        As a result, the weight of the radar, the rotating platform and the cable will clearly exceed 1 ton. Accordingly, the dimensions of the airship will exceed a few tens of meters in length and about two tens of meters in width. To preserve it in a storm, you will need to lower the airship into the ship's hangar of the appropriate size. A ship with a width of 20 meters is a heavy cruiser, a hangar several tens of meters long will exceed the size of the superstructure of the Zwolt in question. Those. the desired effect (reduction of the dimensions of the ship’s superstructures) will not be achieved.

        In addition, to date, there is no way known to raise and lower the tethered airship from the deck / deck of the ship, which will experience pitching with an amplitude of several meters. Without exception, all tethered airships land / take off only from a flat deck with a steady, not squally wind.

        From this we can conclude that it is impossible to use a tethered airship as a carrier of a naval radar.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  19. PPD
    PPD 22 September 2015 11: 55 New
    0
    The paper load article is all interesting, but many ships, including Project 26, went with overload, the latter chronically burying their noses. On modern day, a great weight culture. Here is a certain difference in weight.
    Balloon? What are 5 points !!! ??? Here is a story from life. Maybe 10 years ago they wanted to make a flight with fanfare on these gizmos Moscow-Kiev (Alas, how times are changing. Now it’s impossible to imagine. Like their other life). Start from VDNH with a pump, advertising on TV and radio. I came to see - 2 balls at the Central Pavilion, there is almost no breeze, so light, slightly, and all, they could not take off. Half an hour they tried, they couldn’t. Easy breeze and all. It will be carried to a tree, then to a pavilion. And it is located farther than the superstructure of the ship. And you are 4 points!
  20. Alex_59
    Alex_59 22 September 2015 12: 11 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The mass of all of the above is so insignificant that they are placed in a superstructure the height of an 9-story building, without the risk of overturning the ship

    If you, having finished school and having received an engineering education, do not see the point in this - then what is there to argue about?

    In a word, there are no calculations, there is only a holy faith that these weights are insignificant. Well, for me, after graduating from high school, we will consider such weighty arguments convincing.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2015 07: 06 New
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      In a word, there are no calculations, there are only holy faith the fact that these weights are negligible.

      holy faith - Santa Fe

      Moment of force - a vector physical quantity equal to the product radius vector (drawn from the axis of rotation to the point of application of force) to the vector of this force.

      Alex, well, you can’t do that !!! You are an engineer
  21. engineer74
    engineer74 22 September 2015 12: 42 New
    +2
    I agree with the Author: Zumwalt really built pests! A bunch of expensive equipment, a highly professional crew, a mountain of ammunition and fuel, and all this with a minimum of structural protection! Air defense and antiaircraft defense systems, of course, are good, but funny situations are possible: a stray explosive rocket will fly into the airborne landing gear, a turbojet engine of a downed Ganit will keep the direction of flight (the ship will go from side to side, and along), a martyr on a plywood stealth kayak - that's all this can lead to a complete failure of the ship. While the ships were cheaper and there were a lot of them, the sailors were trained for six months, you could endure, now the situation has changed and the armored protection of the ships will certainly appear! fellow
    IMHO
    PS As for the flying radar, the British are probably right - a quadrocopter with cable power is preferable.
  22. Dan Slav
    Dan Slav 22 September 2015 13: 31 New
    +2
    Balloon or drone - this is very high compared to the current position of the antennas.
    Why not make the mast telescopic under the antenna? Or laced from absorbent materials? It is unlikely that such a design will strongly reflect something.
    On the yachts are quite high and durable mast.
  23. brn521
    brn521 22 September 2015 13: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Dan Slav
    On the yachts are quite high and strong mast

    They have either the wrong geometry (if used as an antenna), or insufficient strength if the necessary equipment is carried up. We thicken / strengthen for the needs of the radar. We get the overall fucking, completely unlike the mast.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 September 2015 18: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: brn521
      They have either the wrong geometry (if used as an antenna), or insufficient strength if the necessary equipment is carried up. We thicken / strengthen for the needs of the radar. We get the overall fucking, completely unlike the mast.

      We get just a tower-like superstructure. smile

      See for yourself: at first there was a cylinder. Then, in order to be able to carry a greater load (Mars), its base was thickened, receiving cone-shaped masts. When KDP was nestled on the masts, then for greater strength they began to make multi-legged masts (up to 7 legs). But the vibrations still didn’t disappear - and then they combined the mast and the nose superstructure, transferring the KDP and the most massive radars to the superstructure.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 22 September 2015 20: 23 New
        0
        well, remembering the famous "pagodas" - a superstructure of Zumwalt and others like it except without external bridges ...
  24. Taoist
    Taoist 22 September 2015 14: 15 New
    +2
    Zumwalt is probably not really a warship, but a "technology demonstrator."
  25. Alex_59
    Alex_59 22 September 2015 14: 28 New
    +2
    I considered the aerostat given by Oleg Kaptsov for carrying radar weighing 860 kg at an altitude of 200 m. I don’t know, maybe I’m doing something wrong, but I got a balloon of 2500 m3 volume, i.e. about 38 long and 12 meters in diameter. That is, something like this: http://rosaerosystems.ru/aero/obj355
    This means that at least Admiral Chabanenko and more. The frigate does not fit.
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 22 September 2015 23: 03 New
      0
      Most interestingly, the size of the hangar for such a balloon is comparable to the size of the superstructures. Despite the fact that the add-on provides the ability to use the radar constantly, and the balloon constantly in the air is unlikely to hang for at least a month, it will fall into the water with all the equipment due to some commonplace, like a lightning strike. :)
    2. Santa Fe
      23 September 2015 07: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      I don’t know, maybe I’m doing something wrong, but I got a balloon of 2500 m3 volume, i.e. about 38 long and 12 meters in diameter.

      Of course you don't

      1 helium balloon lift kg / 1 cube meter

      lifting height can be neglected, air density at a height of 100-200 meters as at the surface

      863 m3 balloon
      but it is redundant

      the mass of such a radar will be less than 100 kg + cable and sheath weight
      1. brn521
        brn521 23 September 2015 12: 31 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the mass of such a radar will be less than 100 kg + cable and sheath weight

        Not enough. I don’t know why, but small-sized supersonic objects need to be detected at a distance of 200 km and above. Perhaps in order to have time to work out regularly air defense systems. Therefore, nevertheless, the mass is larger and the height is higher. The modern aircraft AN / APG-77 was cited as an example of modern radars. Gluttonous, heavy, review only half a horizon, very hot. But compact and with the ability to work in stealth mode. We need 2 pieces (to cover the horizon), the dimensions are not particularly important. Is it possible to keep within 100 kg?
        In general, from the specifics, the most realistic balloons look at the link http://rosaerosystems.ru/aero/obj355. This is already something concrete and adequately reliable (it keeps the wind up to 42 m / s, the period of continuous duty is 15 days). And the height should not be neglected, the larger it is, the better low-flying objects are recognized. Also, in the wind or on the go, you still have to increase the cable / leash so that the balloon does not go down on the water. Still an interesting idea. We can quite see sometime near our coast another Yusov's converted bulk carrier with a 74-meter JLENS on a string. Nevertheless, it is much cheaper than aviation and destroyers to constantly drive on patrols. And there is always an excuse, such as providing civil security, and not pursuing military objectives.
        1. Santa Fe
          24 September 2015 01: 38 New
          0
          Quote: brn521
          I don’t know why, but small-sized supersonic objects need to be detected at a distance of 200km and above.

          And do not know further if you do not want to know

          The radar does not see beyond the radio horizon
          for Zamvolta - the maximum detection range of the NLC is ~ 20 km
          Quote: brn521
          . The modern aircraft AN / APG-77 was cited as an example of modern radars.

          I didn’t bring him

          my example is the helicopter radar AN / APY-147
      2. 30hgsa
        30hgsa 23 September 2015 13: 11 New
        0
        And why did the developers of Zumwalt make radars weighing 22500 kg? And an antenna mass of 2500 kg? Are they so inconspicuous that they have exceeded the weight limit by 25-225 times, or maybe because 100 kg is not enough to implement all the functions that Zumwalt radars need? :) And now if you lift into the air not 100 kg, but 2500 kg .. how much volume will we get a balloon? Or do you stubbornly claim that the mass of the Zumwalt radar antenna of 2,5 tons stems purely from the inertia of the designers and is not justified by anything? :)
        1. Santa Fe
          24 September 2015 01: 40 New
          0
          Quote: 30hgsa
          And why did the developers of Zumwalt make radars weighing 22500 kg?

          this is the only Radar Zamvolta
          it also performs the functions of a surveillance radar, after removing the DBR

          and she’s aiming missiles - Zamvolt has obsolete air defense with ESSM
          Quote: 30hgsa
          all the necessary Zumwalt radar functions are not enough weight in 100 kg?

          The article states directly - there is a survey radar in the add-in
          anti-aircraft missiles with ARGSN (Aster-30, Polement-Redoubt, SM-6)
  26. shans2
    shans2 22 September 2015 15: 06 New
    +3
    The battleships ponad truncated ... Oleg Kaptsov. wassat
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 22 September 2015 18: 04 New
      +2
      Glory to the battleships! Armor glory!
  27. Alex_59
    Alex_59 22 September 2015 15: 42 New
    +1
    Another thought. According to Oleg Kaptsov, it turns out that the weight reserve of armor was spent on ballast and high masts under the antenna posts of the radar.
    We take a ruler and measure it. Arly Burke radar mounted at a height of only 12-14 meters. KDP light cruiser Cleveland WWII is located at an altitude of 17,5 meters.
    Another example. The Alaska battlecruiser has a mast about 32 meters high, and the duck radar is generally thrown at 37 meters. Similar in size, the "ritual temple of death" 1144 has a radar station at an altitude of about 43 meters. That is, the 229-mm armor belt of Alaska and the rest of the armor protection with a total weight of about 30% of the standard displacement was spent to raise the radar by 6 meters and compensate for this with ballast?
    Something is clearly wrong here.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2015 07: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      the weight reserve of armor was spent on ballast and high masts under the antenna posts of the radar.

      On tall and bulky add-ons
      Quote: Alex_59
      The Alaska battlecruiser has a mast about 32 meters high, and the duck radar is generally thrown at 37 meters.

      Displacement of Alaska 34 000 tons, why did you drag it here

      its creators could allow everything
      Quote: Alex_59
      Arly Burke radar mounted at a height of only 12-14 meters. KDP light cruiser Cleveland WWII is located at an altitude of 17,5 meters.

      Actually, Cleveland is larger than Burke by 4000 tons
      giving its creators great freedom

      Dalle - Burke has no KDP booth. At Burke at an altitude of 12-14 meters there are decks and combat posts, together with a bridge and a CIC
      Quote: Alex_59
      Similar in size "ritual temple of death" 1144

      Less by xnumx tons

      and has the same features as burke
      fighting posts and decks at a height of tens of meters
  28. 2nd 12th
    2nd 12th 22 September 2015 15: 55 New
    0
    And I would suggest not a balloon, but something like an electric traction quadrocopter. And the power supply via cable from the generators of the ship. And it will take a little space and it’s easier to launch / land and it will wind up less. And you can try replaceable antennas on it.
    I liked the article. An unusual look at everyday things.
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 22 September 2015 22: 46 New
      0
      And what's the difference where they burn the fuel to maintain the quadric in the air - on the ship + transmission loss, or in the quadric itself? Fuel consumption in order to keep a multi-ton antenna in the air with a propeller? And if lightning gets into the quadric or the screw breaks, well, or is there a proud bird - to collect PAR elements with the help of divers? :)
  29. Svetlana
    Svetlana 22 September 2015 16: 41 New
    +2
    To raise a ship’s radar to a few hundred meters, I suggest not an aerostat, but an inflatable corrugated tube with jet exhaust from nozzle openings at the top of the tube. The tube is held in the air by a jet lift from a jet stream. At the base of the pipe are air compressors. At the top of the pipe is a nozzle unit with rotary nozzles, and a radar for detecting low-flying targets. Compressors pump atmospheric air into the pipe. Air rises up the pipe, leaves the nozzles, fixed with holes down and sideways at its top, creates a lifting force.
    At the top of the pipe, you can also install the blade crowns of a gas turbine to bring the walls of the pipe into rotation, and create additional lifting force from the wing blades fixed to the pipe walls. The turbine and compressor are connected by a flexible connection - flexible corrugated walls of an inflatable corrugated pipe. In the upper part of the pipe, air through the rotary nozzles is discharged down and to the side, in a subgroup forming a single-cavity hyperboloid, on the annular blade ring of a single-stage air turbine. The turbine crown blades are fixed to the pipe walls and rotate it. The rotation is transmitted along the walls of the pipe down to its base to bring into rotation a ring electric generator fixed in the base of the pipe.
    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuyyGC8ZsP4
    1. Sukhoi
      Sukhoi 22 September 2015 18: 29 New
      +1
      Isn’t it easier to put a telescopic mast? Like on the S-300V
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 22 September 2015 21: 05 New
        0
        Telescopic mast (from coaxial tubes embedded one into another as a portable radio antenna or folding accordion as a pantographic suspension of a table lamp, see http://topwar.ru/77985-prezidentskiy-samolet-retranslyator-tu-214sr-provel-pervy

        y-ispytatelnyy-polet.html # comment-id-4688149) of course it's easier to put. But an inflatable corrugated tube with a payload in the form of a PAR can be raised to a much greater height than the standard height of the telescopic mast and to detect a low-flying target at a greater range. And the sooner you find the target, the greater the chance of knocking it down or getting away from it, for example under water.
    2. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 22 September 2015 22: 42 New
      0
      And can an approximate calculation of how much a tube should be in order to raise the mass of the radar?

      And what will this pipe do in a gale, or God forbid in the event of the appearance of one small Air-to-Air missile with a rod warhead?

      And what should I do in case the exhaust stops, landing the antenna?

      And how will the air resistance and, as a result, the movement of the pipe with the antenna during the movement of the ship be compensated?

      :)
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 23 September 2015 21: 21 New
        +1
        An approximate calculation of how much the pipe should be in order to raise the mass of the radar:
        1,4 kg / m3 air density
        40 m / s air velocity in the pipe
        1,5 m pipe radius
        7,065 m2 pipe area
        395,64 kg / s air consumption
        3,17E + 05W Wattage
        1,58E + 04 Newton Reactive Traction
        1400 kg / m3 Kevlar density
        0,0005 m Kevlar pipe wall thickness 0,5mm
        150 m pipe height
        989,1 kg pipe weight
        6,26E + 02kg mass radar with nozzle device.
        The pipe and in a gale may support the radar at a height of 100m above the ship.
        In the event of the appearance of one small Air-to-Air missile with a rod warhead - radar at the top of the tube, it will detect it.
        If the exhaust stops, then the antenna is reduced.
        Air resistance during movement of the pipe with the antenna together with the ship is compensated by reactive thrust
        from nozzle devices at the top of the pipe.
    3. brn521
      brn521 23 September 2015 12: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Svetlana
      The tube is held in the air by a jet lift from a jet stream.

      The jet has too low an efficiency. Especially if you have to transport the working fluid along a long, and even corrugated pipe. As soon as we think about increasing the efficiency, we will get some quadrocopter powered by an electric cable. As soon as we think about the 24/7 mode of operation for 1-2 weeks with 100% reliability, we will return to ordinary antennas and add-ons. Of the known alternatives that can work in this mode, only balloons.
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 23 September 2015 21: 33 New
        0
        A pipe rotating around its axis with blades fixed to its walls is capable of generating electricity like a wind farm. It is also capable of creating horizontal thrust, like sails to set the ship in motion due to the Magnus effect in any direction of the wind. Of course, if the ship has a nuclear power plant with a capacity of 50 MegaWatts, then 300 kilowatts for pumping air through the pipe on board the ship there are. And if you don’t find it, then you can miss the little dot on the horizon that will send the ship to the bottom of the sea in 20 seconds.
  30. Kvazar
    Kvazar 22 September 2015 18: 29 New
    0
    Oleg. Once encountered. So, for a charge of 300 grams, well, a maximum of 400. The non-explosion-proof case weighed 6 kilograms. And it had 5mm thick aluminum alloy walls comparable to D16 in terms of strength +))) Why aluminum? Because that remote control case was not related to the main system and was secondary, and its damage would not have led to the system being disabled. They didn’t test the impact strength (it was a pity to break), but something tells me that he would have withstood a hammer with a sledgehammer))) And this is for a 300 gram board) On ships, everyone does it so that a sailor (on them the army method "one broke the other lost ") the equipment withstood. And it weighs a lot and can not see the decline.
    Yes, the picture you have given with analog filling also looks like with electronic filling. And the same connectors that you can kill if desired. And the wiring in the arm is thick.
  31. Koshchei
    Koshchei 22 September 2015 21: 02 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    write nonsense
    Compare power windows and paddles in old cars

    Yes, you completely distort! If we compare ships, so do not appeal to cars and air defense systems. Let's start with the fittings. If you have an electric drive, then not only an electric motor hangs on the valve, but also a huge gearbox, preferably a two-stage, preferably with a worm stage, plus power and control cables plus switchboards, plus generators (is it worth mentioning that the power is electric the energy system on modern ships is at least an order of magnitude higher than before) plus these generators serving systems. Hydromachines, of course, are not so big, but add high-pressure pumps, pneumatic accumulators, communications, distributor filters, tanks with working fluid here. The pneumatic actuated valve is generally enchanting; this huge "head" in some cases is significantly larger than the hydraulic part, plus air supply cylinders, cleaning and drying units, distributor blocks, pipelines, and again electrical automation. And, of course, the conditions and, by the way, the requirements for placing electronics on a car chassis are completely different from those on a ship. Do not look for a black cat in a dark room ... Each applied technical solution has its price not only in rubles, but in kilograms and cubic meters.
  32. 30hgsa
    30hgsa 22 September 2015 22: 13 New
    0
    About the "balloon" antennas.

    And let's calculate what kind of balloon it will be. I think on my fingers, so I will take the data from Wikia, I can not vouch for the accuracy because Wikipedia, but the order will help to evaluate

    On a zumwalt put AN / SPY-3. According to Wikipedia, the weight of the antenna is 2500 kg, the weight of the deck equipment is 20 kg. Assume that you need to lift the weight of only the antenna.

    Helium lifting force = 1 cube per 1 kg taken from here: http://militera.lib.ru/tw/ionov_pp2/06.html

    In total, to lift 2500 kg you need 2500 m3 and this is only the volume that will pull the payload, excluding the skin, gondola, controls, cable. Judging by the Au-30 airship, the payload mass is about two less than the mass of the structure itself. Well, let's say they are equal due to power from below and unmanned. Total we need an airship with a volume of 5000 m3.

    We estimate the radius of the ball on our fingers and get ... 10,5 m approximately. Those. the diameter of the ball will be 21 meters. Height is 7-8 storey building. If halved in height and width, then you need to increase four times in length. Those. as an option, a sausage 82 meters long and 11 meters in diameter ...

    Now let's think:
    - How will this sausage or ball behave in a storm or just a strong wind.
    - How to protect this sausage from the enemy’s weapons, unlike a superstructure, it will lose lift and fall if damaged.
    - How to provide helium recharge.
    - Where, in what hangar to store this miracle of 80 by 10 meters? Or do soft skin and lower helium, but then how to store gas, how to pump, etc.?
    - What will be the EPR of this sausage in terms of stealth zumwalt, will it not kill the very idea of ​​reducing the visibility of the ship?

    Answering these questions, it seems you can understand why antennas on airships are unscientific fiction for warships.
  33. Atigay
    Atigay 22 September 2015 22: 13 New
    +1
    Of course you know better from above. Then why not make a drone with microwave power from the ship? It seems that the Americans are planning something for non-defenders (those drones that are designed for a very long flight). From a height of 10 km, where the air is rarer, such a thing would hang unnoticed above the uterus. In stock, of course, there should be a few more.
    1. 30hgsa
      30hgsa 22 September 2015 22: 33 New
      -1
      And how much will a drone weigh, capable of lifting 2500 kg of radar and how much fuel will it take to constantly hang above the ship, taking into account wind, ship movement, and so on?
  34. 30hgsa
    30hgsa 22 September 2015 22: 52 New
    0
    Now about the fans of quadrocopters and UAVs. I would like to know a few questions.

    - Where can I get engines for a quadrocopter / UAV that will have a resource sufficient to operate 24/7 in the air?

    - In the event of engine failure (unavoidable at 24/7), will the radar antenna be lost by splashing in a hodgepodge?

    - What will be the fuel consumption to maintain a weight of several tons 24/7 in the air?

    - After working out the warranty period in 24/7 UAV mode (everything that moves - breaks down, unlike the add-in), needs to be replaced with another UAV?

    - How many UAVs will be needed in the form of consumables to provide the ship for a year?
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 22 September 2015 23: 43 New
      +2
      And now the counter question "for non-fans"

      1) Do you seriously think that firing radars work with us 24 / 7?

      2) You are not aware of such a thing as duplication of systems and, in the worst case, "autorotation"?

      3) It flows from the first ...

      4) Everything has to be repaired and replaced periodically ... even that which does not move. And for this there is such a thing as modular construction.

      5) As many as needed - because they are not needed for the entire antenna economy and not constantly, but only for situations of active search and guidance of weapons ...

      And to the question ... I'm personally not a UAV fan at all. But here is not to understand that in one form or another without them can not do ...
      1. 30hgsa
        30hgsa 22 September 2015 23: 54 New
        0
        -No, they can start working at any time and they don’t need to take off, gain altitude, etc., the reaction time you know, will it be several orders of magnitude less, yes ... will you also put the surveillance radar on the UAV? We are discussing the idea of ​​removing mast superstructures and replacing them with UAVs ...

        - I know how many helicopter crashes we have this year, with duplication of systems and autorotation?

        - from the first it follows that? But do you put the surveillance radar on the add-on? Those. add-on is still needed and high enough? And then what are we talking about?

        - but not everything falls in the event of a malfunction from a height of N meters into the water or onto the deck.

        - And what will give you information that now you need to raise UAVs into the air? Those. in addition to UAVs, are we returning to the idea of ​​a radar on a fairly high superstructure? If she will never be there and you will never know about the threatened situation, well, or will you have to keep the UAV in the air for days, how much engine will it fail and how much does it cost to keep it in the air instead of an add-on?

        UAVs are needed, very needed. But they cannot replace stationary radars as suggested. All the same, add-ons and radar on them will be needed. The idea to REPLACE Stationary UAV radars is what seems unscientific fiction to me.
  35. Koshchei
    Koshchei 22 September 2015 22: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    Could it be more detailed?

    Ever heard of industry standards? It is they who dictate to modern designers how to build this or that object. If something is being built on an automobile chassis here, the designer will be limited by the size and axle load. If a car chassis for driving on public roads means the width is no more than 2500 mm, if not, then the other rail limit is 3500. Here, of course, the density of the layout and the lightening of the elements will be of paramount importance. Shipbuilding operates on a different scale. Here restrictions may arise in terms of the size of slipways, depths in the areas of our shipyards, because the vast majority of them are on the rivers. The equipment has high demands on the impact resistance of water and fire protection, which implies some kind of constructive protection for it (recall fellow travelers sea officers, one told me how, from the mast, some electronic unit was dropped onto the deck, and when opened, ONE inside! Small relay on the heart itself. Spark did not break, but it worked). A ship is one of the most complex engineering structures (only a submarine is more difficult) there is so much to place there that even there are special designers - the owners of the premises. Not to allocate on the ship several "cubes" of tightly packed three by three by five with electronics, so that it can be connected with communications, maintained and protected from external influences.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2015 07: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Koshchei
      . The equipment has high demands on the impact resistance of water and fire protection

      Those. C-400 equipment deployed in the field, in any weather, with heavy rainfall and other adverse conditions - is water protection not required?

      In this case, the reference to "industry standards" did not make sense

      All the chatter about the incredible "volumes for electronics and moisture protection" for shipboard FCAs is refuted by the existence of compact C-300 / C-400, Patriots and OTRK Iskander. Acting well in no less difficult conditions and having similar characteristics

      I'm not talking about the most complex aviation systems - overboard minus 50, supersonic air pressure, maneuvers with overloads up to 9g
      Quote: Koshchei
      fellow travelers are recalling naval officers, one told me how, from the mast, some electronic unit was dropped onto the deck, and when they opened it, ONE inside! a small relay on the heart itself

      bike
  36. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 23 September 2015 01: 06 New
    0
    And when the “storm covers the sky in darkness”, what will happen to this balloon? There are sometimes storms in the ocean, as you know. And when there are none, then there is usually an ocean breeze. And if he is not there, then calmness also happens occasionally. But the ship’s speed is about 30 knots, it’s about 50 km / h, and how will the balloon be somewhere behind the water or drag along the water at that speed? Bullshit is an idea about a balloon.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2015 07: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Falcon5555
      There are sometimes storms in the ocean, as you know.

      for the fourth time

      the ship cannot use weapons in a storm and rocking
      balloon to hangar

      and yes, ships never go to 30 nodes, this is dangerous for navigational reasons, and it’s just not necessary
      in the age of radar and missile weapons
      1. Assistant
        Assistant 23 September 2015 08: 18 New
        0
        the ship cannot use weapons in a storm and rocking
        balloon to hangar


        Yes, that’s not the point. A balloon, of course, is very good, but 30hgsa already asked questions:
        1) where to store the balloon -
        sausage with a length of 82 meters and a diameter of 11 meters ...
        if it is blown off;
        2) how to quickly inflate / deflate a balloon (dimensions in paragraph 1)), if it is deflated;
        3) how to guarantee the absolute impossibility of a collision between a balloon and ship structures during ascent and descent with a wave of 3 points? Remove everything from the deck?
        4) how to guarantee the absolute impossibility of a collision between a balloon and a ship after hitting a single fragment of a closely intercepted rocket?
        5), and so on.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2015 08: 26 New
          0
          Quote: Assistant
          1) where to store the balloon -
          sausage with a length of 82 meters and a diameter of 11 meters ...

          ellipse 15 meters long
          Quote: Assistant
          2) how to quickly inflate / blow off a balloon (dimensions in paragraph 1)),

          why do we need an aerostat 84 meter))
          yourself not funny?
          Quote: Assistant
          how to guarantee the absolute impossibility of a collision between a balloon and ship structures during ascent and descent during a wave in the 3 point?

          to develop the course of 15 knots against the wind
          Quote: Assistant
          4) how to guarantee the absolute impossibility of a collision of a balloon with a ship after hitting a single fragment of a closely intercepted rocket?

          did not understand the logic. what should be the hole))
          1. 30hgsa
            30hgsa 23 September 2015 12: 40 New
            +1
            An ellipse of 15 meters in length will not pick up the Zumwalt radar antenna. If the diameter of the ellipse is not 30 meters. And the idea that the H010 type radar weighing 250 kg can perform the same functions as the AN / SPY-3 with an antenna weight of 2500 kg result purely from ignorance of the characteristics of the first and second products.

            Do you also need to install the Beetles Paddy on DRLO planes, and the multi-ton antennas on them are purely from inertia and wrecking of designers? :)
            1. Assistant
              Assistant 26 September 2015 19: 26 New
              0
              If the diameter of the ellipse is not 30 meters.


              In-in. And this, by the way, is without reservation. In the right way, a balloon should be created with gas cylinders isolated from each other, the number of which exceeds the minimum required, so that when several of them are pierced with a crazy fragment, the balloon remains in the air. And this is + to its size.
      2. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 24 September 2015 01: 23 New
        0
        for the fourth time

        the ship cannot use weapons in storms and heavy rolling
        balloon to hangar

        and yes, ships never go to 30 nodes, this is dangerous for navigational reasons, and it’s just not necessary
        in the age of radar and missile weapons

        So if there is a storm, then the glorious warship of the heroic Russian Navy should declare a truce? Or a ceasefire. Immediately a radiogram in plain text: "Everyone, everyone, everyone, we have a storm, we don’t shoot at us!" Or give up right away? Then you need to keep the white flag ready. Yes, and in case you need to develop the design maximum speed - too. As you accelerate, immediately raise it. To make people understand. Where is this ship in a hurry? He is in a hurry to surrender, captive

        In general, if you repeat the same nonsense for the fourth time, and even in the four hundredth, then they will not cease to be nonsense. No, of course I understand, there are easily suggestible people for whom it may and will cease. But, fortunately, not all of them.
  37. ilkornej
    ilkornej 23 September 2015 11: 19 New
    0
    This is not the first time in production that I am faced with the quality problem of design solutions - there are a lot of template solutions that are difficult to fit together. I suppose that this global problem (look at the architecture of modern processors - this reduction and compaction of the original, without serious study) affects the design of ships and, in particular, their layout.
  38. ilkornej
    ilkornej 23 September 2015 11: 25 New
    0
    A balloon for a ship can be built according to the scheme of a kite (to increase performance on the go or in the wind) or in the form of a disk (as cargo airships are now designing). Again, this is not a complete replacement for RKO, but rather in addition.
  39. 30hgsa
    30hgsa 23 September 2015 12: 32 New
    0
    In general, what is the point of arguing with a person who believes that a radar beetle raised to the air is enough for a ship ... and that the designers make the radar antennas weighing 2,5 tons out of stagnation and sabotage. :) Well, they wanted to and they made a substrate of cast iron. Well, the capabilities of the radar with AFAR Zumwalt and Beetle are of course the same yes ...
    Can instead of over-the-horizon radars also build kites with bugs? :)

    Down with AN / SPY-3, give H010.

    And the garbage, that the first "Carries out a three-dimensional review, tracking targets during the scanning process (TWS), target recognition, targeting of weapon systems, weapon control, programming anti-aircraft missile autopilots, target lighting for semi-active homing missiles SM-2 and ESSM. In addition, it can detect submarine periscopes, floating mines and other small objects, it is used as a navigation radar. It can carry out overview and tracking of targets in passive mode, carry out counter-battery functions. "

    Why is this all, we will put the radar in the type of those that are put on motor boats and put them in the air! For the destroyer will do!

    This is sarcasm if that.
  40. artura0911
    artura0911 23 September 2015 15: 10 New
    0
    Today, the French confirmed that the Mistrals sold to Egypt (((
  41. Koshchei
    Koshchei 23 September 2015 21: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    for ship's OMS - is refuted by the existence of compact S-300 / S-400, Patriots and OTRK Iskander. Acting well in no less difficult conditions and having similar characteristics
    Good, great again! No need to add up kilograms with meters. It is not necessary to tear out one single system from the context, but specifically the context of the ship. Try to put this dozen cars into the boat, where in addition to this there is a lot of things and make them work smoothly. Here, when solving a specific engineering problem, the answer will be refuted by being examples from parallel reality or not. Do not argue with a person who has been working in shipbuilding for 20 years. I also saw the tightness of the shipboard “open spaces” and how, for example, the volume of the hydroacoustic conditioning partition is related to the volume of the partition itself in which these racks stand. A look from the inside is always preferable to superficial conclusions, and most importantly removes a lot of unnecessary questions and does not give ground for silly fantasies.
  42. Koshchei
    Koshchei 23 September 2015 21: 50 New
    +1
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    Details if possible. You mean that it is not necessary to compact ship systems, or is it not possible?
    Of course, the second thing for all is the need for service areas, access to carry out repairs or repair combat damage. It would be wasteful to build ships that were arranged so that they could die from minor damage to the pipeline, access to which is not available. A ship is a whole complex that provides 1. buoyancy; 2. unsinkability; 3. movement; 4. energy supply; 5. habitability. These five elements will be necessary regardless of the purpose of the ship (vessel). But on the sixth will be the target equipment, try to shove everything you need between the first five points.
  43. Taoist
    Taoist 23 September 2015 22: 29 New
    0
    But all the same, Zumwalt and others like him *** are terrible ... Even stealth architecture should not so mutilate ships.
  44. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 24 September 2015 11: 00 New
    +1
    The idea of ​​raising the antennas and radars of warships into the air
    (literally) is very robust. And on quadrocopters or balloons,
    or together - you have to think.
    Then the whole deck becomes flat and aircraft carrier. Can take
    different planes and helicopters. The guns are buried and go up
    just before shooting. Launchers - in the deck. In the sense of stealth
    - also a solid win. The ship is as low as a submarine.
    1. Nishtiag
      Nishtiag 28 September 2015 02: 17 New
      0
      Nevertheless, it seems to me rational that some mine launch aircraft on a cable above the ship. The cable transfers power and information from the radar. In the case of a balloon by a motor mounted on a cable reel, it will be lowered. Probably, you need to have two or even three balloons and a radar for maintenance, or to replace a lost one in a battle if the second one under repair was dismantled somewhere "aft". And the ship itself, continuing fantasies, can be made licked as a submarine and semi-submerged to lower it even lower above the surface of the water. Aircraft radar should see potential targets. Or the ship itself should go sort of like in "stealth mode".

      We can assume the return of hydroplanes on rail catapults. Only unmanned. Equipment - the same radar. UAVs are smaller with the detection of a close radius. A larger UAV (the size of a ripper and a traitor) is already a daily flight and a more powerful radar. The question is in the energy sector ... The question is in the landing ... Float? On the radio? Or is it a parachute? It is already necessary to do projects and calculations .. To conduct tests. For example, a parachute plus inflatable pillows by analogy with the landing system of rovers Spirit and opportunity. And then a big ball from the crane))) But the very fact of an aircraft-type UAV will not give an accurate picture of the enemy where your ship, unlike an attached balloon or quadrocopter, which, even if it is not tied, will not fly far from the ship. If you take a ship with zombolt dimensions, then you could combine all this if the radar for detecting NLCs really weighs less than 100 kg. Thus, a "small", relative to Nimitz, destroyer could get its own mini A-50, plus a "mast" -aerostat up to 100-200 meters high, it should be considered, maybe more. The theme needs to be developed !!! A UAV is the future not only of the Air Force, but also of the Navy, even more likely the second, because the volumes of ships are very limited compared to airfields on land.

      To everyone who mastered my second comment on this portal - a huge respect and respect, please answer the first a little lower))))
  45. Nishtiag
    Nishtiag 28 September 2015 02: 03 New
    0
    Who can tell where in general it is possible to get the characteristics of the radar for detecting NLCs installed today on warships. The mass, power consumption, range of the beam (or as it is correctly called, that is, not a radio horizon as a geometric concept, but the effective range of target detection by a given locator based on its energy characteristics). Maybe even the name of such a radar ... Tell me, I know for sure that there are more than a dozen people who understand this)))
  46. Ivan the Fool
    Ivan the Fool 3 October 2015 16: 52 New
    0
    Will fight with pests!
  47. Shnd
    Shnd 11 October 2015 21: 11 New
    +1
    "Zumwalt was built by pests."
    In terms of price - yes
  48. Fornit
    Fornit 7 February 2017 12: 01 New
    +2
    Quote: engineer74
    engineer74
    I agree with the Author: Zumwalt really built pests! A bunch of expensive equipment, a highly professional crew, a mountain of ammunition and fuel, and all this with a minimum structural protect!


    If you carry such a high rank - Engineer, you would have bothered to learn (or at least get acquainted) that the ships do not have structural protection, but there is CONSTRUCTIVE ... And only then carry on a polemic regarding it.
  49. Indifferent
    Indifferent 28 February 2017 02: 09 New
    0
    The pointless and long argument of the "giants of thought." I read for a long time, until I was tired. This is my opinion. If the war is vigorous, then after the first ten nuclear explosions, radio communications will practically disappear. At what on all ranges. The radar can and will work, but with interference. And what there will see radars pulled up to a height of 100 meters, a big question. We should not forget such a feature of the war that without the means of suppressing electronics, few will dare to use weapons. It used to be called "sparrow shooting." Perhaps the tactics of using weapons like this will appear. In the beginning, with a shortage of several kilometers, a nuclear bomb is blown up, and when all the adversary’s electronics stall for a while, they send missiles directly to the targets. This will already be revealed during the fighting. Now no one can say anything. Well and more. Ships will never be deployed on a theater alone. It will be either AUG or KUG or a security order. Each will have helicopters with radar. A group of ships to patrol the fuel is enough. And why not patrol to the point of insanity. Came to the threatened area - patrol. Came out, you can save on fuel. It is just as impossible to keep the crew on alert alert posts for days without sleep. People need to sleep and poop at least sometimes.
  50. yehat
    yehat 28 February 2017 21: 17 New
    0
    I wonder if it is possible to make a radar suspended on magnets high enough?