How to build an invincible ship?




Discussions about the security of ships generate a powerful brainstorming session, which opens up technical details and little-known facts from stories sea ​​battles.

At the same time, the thesis about the need to return armor, despite the apparent paradox, is fraught with the great question: how efficient is the modern Navy?

The main reason, in my opinion, is that the ships have not really been fighting in recent years ... eleven (against equal / dangerous opponents). Here is the design idea and stopped. Infantry and Tanks After WWII, they were very actively used, and as a result we got ballistic helmets / bulletproof bulletproof vests / harnesses for infantry, DZ and KAZ for tanks built into the equipment + removal of the fighting compartment in the case of “Armata”. With ships, the development stopped at the level of "maybe they won’t hit us" due to electronic warfare, ineffective and / or small missile defense.

Comment from severny.

From myself I would add that in the half century of the bloody evolution, MBT turned into real armored monsters. Despite the presence of a huge arsenal of anti-tank weapons, penetrating any armor “on paper” and leaving no chance to all existing models of armored vehicles.

The discussion resulted in a cycle of popular (judging by reader reviews) articles on ship security. In response, critical articles are born, the authors of which are desperately looking for arguments against. Search, but do not find.

Lord, you need to look carefully!

Here are just a few comments on the article “Lost Armor” recently published in “VO”.

What ships carried serious booking during the years of WWII? It was at least "light cruisers", but "light" only in the classification of that era. In reality, these were ships with a full displacement of more than 12000 tons. That is comparable in size to the modern RKR Ave 1164. Smaller ships did not have armor, either booking was purely symbolic: with 25-50 plate thickness mm.

Armor protection light cruisers 30-x. exceeded the mass of their weapons.

How to build an invincible ship?


1536 tons. 25 railway wagons with metal - much more symbolic!

All this is an LKR pr. 26-bis (“Maxim Gorky”), equal in displacement to the unarmored destroyer “Orly Burk”. A very surprising result: when one bow group of GK towers weighed more than all 90 rocket mines with Tomahawks. The cruiser had three times the larger crew. And, that especially "delivers", its power plant exceeded on 30 000 l. with. turbines ultramodern "Burke".

If you do not like the “Maxim Gorky” with 70-mm armor belts, an even lighter “Atlanta” will come to the rescue, where the thickness of the armor plates reached 95 mm (standard cruiser displacement - 6700 tons, full - 8100).

21-th century, the Internet. Wasn’t there enough strength, at least for the sake of decency, to become familiar with the light cruisers of the Second World War?

The version that the weight reserved for armor on WWII cruisers could increase the height of reinforcements of the radar antenna posts does not hold water. The KDP of WWII cruisers were located, as a rule, at the same altitudes, or slightly lower - just a few meters. For example, the KDP of the 68-bis cruiser was located at an altitude of 27 meters from the waterline, and the radar antenna post on the 1164 cruiser was located at an altitude of 32 meters.

The problem is not in the antenna posts radar and KDP. The problem is a little lower.

Where the winds whistled at World War II cruisers, you can now sit comfortably in a chair and, pressing the computer buttons, admire the ocean sunset from a height.



Simply put, there, at an unattainable height, are located the usual decks. With rooms, communications and consoles combat information center. And the superstructure itself acquired the look of a huge multi-storey “box” wide from side to side.

Most of it comes from the fact that designers have thousands of tons of load reserve and stability margin after removing armor. There is where to roam! At the same time, the “computers and electronics” themselves weigh very little against the background of other articles of the ship load. The main weight went to the power set, plating and deck flooring of this multi-storey “box”.

Why was the reserve spent so “ineptly”? This was discussed in detail in the previous article. With no recommendations and limitations, designers choose the easiest way by placing antennas on the walls of high superstructures - to simplify their installation and maintenance. Along the way, using the resulting volumes to accommodate combat posts and halls for fitness. Plus, additional ballast to compensate for the negative effect of windage from a solid superstructure.

"The specific density of the ship." To verify the above arguments, you can use the simplest, even primitive, but clear way to estimate the density of a ship’s layout. The underwater part of any vessel has a complex shape, and in order not to engage in the calculation of integrals, we simply take the volume bounded by the length, width and draft of the hull.

My opponent has introduced a new parameter - “Specific density of the ship”. It is calculated as the ratio of displacement to the volume of the underwater part of the hull (length * width * draft).

To understand the meaninglessness of this undertaking, I will give the simplest example.

There is a ship with a displacement of X tons and a draft of H meters. During the modernization, half of the boilers and turbines weighing x tons were removed from it. How to change the density of the cruiser? According to household logic, it should decrease (displacement is less by Y tons, the hull volumes remain unchanged).

What does my dear opponent do? In the cruiser the displacement decreased (X - x), together with it the draft decreased (H - h). That is, the “specific density” of the ship after the removal of the mechanisms of the power plant practically did not change!

Where is the mistake? There is a displacement, measured in tons. There is a volume of the underwater part of the hull - a cube. m. There is a reserve of buoyancy (impermeable to water volume of the hull above the waterline), cub. m. The confusion of these parameters gives absurd results.

There are exceptions confirming the rule. There are armored ships, the conditional density of which is close to that of rocket ships. True, the very booking of such ships can be considered tending to zero. These are the cruisers of the 26-bis project.

Somewhere we have already met them ... Ah, this is “Maxim Gorky”, whose armor weight exceeded the weight weapons.

The disappearance of 25 wagons with scrap metal is such a trick even Copperfield cannot.



Our BOD 1134B is one-on-one similar in displacement to the Japanese light cruisers Agano ... The ships are the same, and the armor to the BN 1134B is not! Where did talentless designers get armor-free tons on our BOD? No need to rush to conclusions, you must first enjoy the information on booking "Agano". It had the thickness of the side armor of the whole 50 mm, the deck in 20 and the tower 25 mm. In principle, armored personnel carriers of the ground forces are booking almost the same today. In short, the displacement and size of unarmored rocket ships and their armored artillery ancestors begin to converge when the booking of the latter tends to zero.

Well, if you really argue, then argue honestly.

“Agano” had an armor belt 60 mm thick (length 65 m, height 3,4 m) to which two additional 55 mm sections for cellar protection (length 27 m in the bow and 6 m in the stern) adjoined. Citadel Deck - 20 mm Anti-Rejection Reservation. Elevators of ammunition covered plates with thickness up to 50 mm.

The total weight of the “Agano” armor tends to zero and was 656 tons (8% of the standard cruiser displacement). Such a reserve of load would have been received by designers, having built a ship similar in displacement, completely abandoning armor. It is also necessary to take into account that between “Agano” and 1134B there is a whole technological abyss - 35 years. With the same power of the power plant, the 1134B designers again benefit from gas turbines, winning an additional hundreds of tons.

Where did talentless designers get armor-free tons on our BOD? Spent on weapons! Four air defense missile systems, anti-submarine missiles, light artillery, a helicopter ... BOD Ave 1134B became the most armed ship in the history of the Russian Navy. By the number of missiles on its board, the “Bukar” was twice as big as the modern Aegis destroyer! Despite the outdated technology 70-x, cumbersome and inefficient beam PU, fire control on the monstrous microelectronic base of that era.

How did the specialists of the Northern PKB manage to build a masterpiece?
The "Bukar" did not have high superstructures.



1134B, like the Japanese “Agano”, are not the best examples for discussing the “mysterious” loss of displacement.

The Japanese was a specific light cruiser, one of the worst representatives in its class.

The Soviet BOD did not have the layout characteristic of ships of the twenty-first century. Despite the placement of weapons on the upper deck (which adversely affected stability compared to modern UVP), the “Bukar” did not have a solid box-like superstructure from side to side, with a height of ten-story house. And due to this, had a huge advantage!

In this sense, the project 1134B - an example of how many useful things you can install on board, with the correct layout of the ship.

And the answer lies in the armor penetration of modern warheads of anti-ship missiles. The presence of an armor belt with a thickness of 150-200 mm does not fundamentally solve the task of protecting the ship. The presence of 200-300 mm thick, but negligibly small, armored belt with an X-ray thickness, does not play any role. If even a rocket hits him, she punches him without any problems.

No role and no problems. Just like the disappeared 1500 tons from the cruiser “Maxim Gorky”.

150 mm of armor steel is a guaranteed protection against any RCC in practice (Harpoon, Exochet, NSM, Yingji, X-35).

The grounds? Speed ​​"Harpoon" weight and fur. the strength of the warhead (since all the rest of the missile’s “missile” will turn into dust) in comparison with an armor-piercing 203-mm projectile. Rate odds filling. Do not forget to take into account the unfortunate location of the warhead in the middle of the rocket body. And draw conclusions!

Opponents of the construction of protected ships usually emanate from false ideas, guided by the silhouettes and layout of modern Zamvolts and Aegis destroyers. Gentlemen, the creators of these vessels did not plan to increase their security, they built them in such a way that they couldn’t put armor there.



The highly secure ship of our time will not be like any modern ship or TKR of past eras. Shorter, stable and capacious building, a citadel-armored capsule with integration of armor into a power set, rational installation angles (strong sides of the Zamvolta side, maximum squat superstructure in the shape of a tetrahedron), horizontal protection not inferior in vertical power, additional measures to cover ammunition storage sites, a splinter wall along all compartments and aisles on the opposite side of the board, numerous internal bulkheads ...

The mass of such armor will be within 2-2,5 thousand tons (focusing on the TKR types “Baltimore” and “Des Moines”). While modern ships can afford more at the expense of modern technology.

At full displacement of the cruiser 15 thousand tons.

The complexity and cost of armor plates is nothing against the background of the high-tech “stuffing” of modern Ajis. Otherwise, the construction of such a ship is no different from the construction of "Orly Burke."

It is known that the cumulative high-explosive warhead BCR PKR "Basalt", which is in service with the cruisers of the project 1164, breaks through the 400 mm of armored steel.

It would be interesting to get acquainted with the original source and the results of practical shooting “Basalt” at protected targets.

The Super Cruisers like Peter the Great may not be stoked by the Harpoons or the X-35, but by the Granit and the Basalt.

Arms always show samples of super-cannons and anti-tank guided missiles, which break through any tank. But whenever war begins, tanks meet land mines and downpour from conventional anti-tank weapons (from Pak 38 discs to simple and massive RPGs).

I think the analogy is clear.

Even for light RCCs that do not have high kinetic energy (low flight speed and mass of the warhead), a compact cumulative warhead can be built, capable of coping with at least an 100-mm barrier.

Strike the board, and then what? Ahead is a system of isolated compartments and splinter bulkheads.


Imprint of kamikaze aboard the cruiser Sussex
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

169 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. dumkopff 2 October 2015 06: 30 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Regardless of the effectiveness or inefficiency of ship reservation. 400 mm armor penetration is not impressive. On modern MBTs, armor versus cumulative ammunition is equivalent to 900 mm of homogeneous steel.
    Somehow in the opponent’s article two points were missed:
    a) Over the past 70 years, a significant shift has occurred in the reservation issue: new materials, composite armor, dynamic protection, active defense systems.
    b) Just against cumulative ammunition - ships provide a wide scope for the use of exploded reservations.
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 06: 46 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Quote: dumkopff
      On modern MBTs, armor versus cumulative ammunition is equivalent to 900 mm of homogeneous steel.

      MBT reserved volume 5 cu. meters

      in 90% of cases penetration means loss of crew and loss of tank

      Ship - the volume of the citadel 10 000 cu. meters. The usual penetration of the side will not do anything - you need to wind up another hundred kg of explosives under the armor in order to cause serious damage. Which is already much more complicated. I will say more - at the modern technical level, the creation of any massive and compact ammunition of this purpose is impossible Also, as a manned flight to Mars is impossible.

      * What does "compact" mean? capable of being used by tactical aircraft and conventional ships
      1. Vadim237 2 October 2015 09: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        We are waiting for the creation of isomeric explosives.
      2. Greyjojo 2 October 2015 13: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Do you seriously think that if now some country will lay a mega battleship with 150/200 mm armor and for 5 years of its construction no one will think of putting a tandem warhead on onyx? the benefit of 300 kg can be placed and cumulative penetrating just 200 mm of armor and another 200 kg of explosives will remain on fly in and damn all the dogs.
        1. dvg79 2 October 2015 17: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes, even if a triple warhead ship was set not a tank, the tank against it was ineffective, even the PT76 could withstand 20 hits from RPGs.
        2. Sukhoi 2 October 2015 18: 40 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Do you imagine the size of a cumulative jet capable of making a hole for a "200kg bomb burst"?

          Cumulative ammunition is not intended to make holes with the subsequent penetration of anything else, but to destroy the crew in limited amount pressure, temperature and splinters. Do not confuse them with the chamber ones.
          1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 18: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Think too narrowly ... Somehow anti-bunker bombs and shells fly.
            1. Sukhoi 2 October 2015 19: 05 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Concrete aerial bombs (BETAB) are designed to destroy objects that have strong concrete or reinforced concrete protection (fortifications, runways, etc.). Caliber 250-500 kg. It is a high-explosive aircraft bomb with thickened walls and a stronger warhead (according to the American classification - semi-armor-piercing aircraft bomb). For use from assault heights and to ensure the safety of an aircraft, it is equipped with a braking device (usually a parachute type) and an accelerating rocket engine, which is switched on after a fall in the speed of an aircraft bomb drops to a certain value as a result of the braking device.
              BETAB-500U: all 510 kg, warhead weight 45 kg, diameter 450, length 2480. The bomb can pierce up to 3 m of soil or 1,2 m of reinforced concrete.
              There is nothing to do with cumulative shells. Hefty "thick-skinned disc" at high speed breaks through the armor and explodes inside. Typical chamber projectile.
              1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 19: 15 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                There is a general thing - for example, a block of guns can still be placed in front of a blank which drills a recess / move for the bomb, where it then safely and even more easily breaks in.
                Think narrowly ... think in a circle laughing
                1. Sukhoi 2 October 2015 20: 17 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Do not leave the topic. The question was the appropriateness of using a cumulative warhead against a well-armored ship. And, judging by the fact that the entrance has already gone blocks of guns on anti-bunker bombs, the question is closed.
                  1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 21: 58 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    There is such expediency. And there are such ammunition - just like cumulatively like cannons they knock out a continuous or annular channel. You still can’t enter it ... Now it's closed!
                    1. Sukhoi 2 October 2015 22: 19 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Can you give examples of such ammunition? Something like KZK only with a different arrangement of charges?
                      1. Sukhoi 2 October 2015 22: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Everything turned out to be even simpler:
                        For X-22Н, lightweight up to 630 kg warheads with a high-explosive-cumulative charge were also used, when triggered, a destruction zone formed on board the ship with an area of ​​22 m² and a depth of 12 m repeat
                      2. Greyjojo 4 October 2015 18: 21 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        You see, everything has already been invented ...
                        As an amateurish example, I can cite the warhead X-29 (warhead 317 kg, of which 116 kg is a vzvchatka, "Before the detonation of the combat load, the rocket can penetrate about 1 m of concrete covered with 3 meters of soil") delivered to the onyx (X-61 ) (warhead 300 kg, surface speed up to 2 Mach)
                      3. Greyjojo 4 October 2015 18: 21 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You see, everything has already been invented ...
                        As an amateurish example, I can cite the warhead X-29 (warhead 317 kg, of which 116 kg is a vzvchatka, "Before the detonation of the combat load, the rocket can penetrate about 1 m of concrete covered with 3 meters of soil") delivered to the onyx (X-61 ) (warhead 300 kg, surface speed up to 2 Mach)
                    2. Scraptor 3 October 2015 06: 09 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Examples of Discovery Channel cited 15 years ago, including cannon.
                2. bk0010 3 October 2015 02: 01 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  I will slightly open the question. Remember the device of thermobaric ammunition RPO "Bumblebee". There, a cumulative jet pierces a channel in the bunker wall through which explosives are injected. IMHO, can be scaled to naval needs.
    2. Scraptor 3 October 2015 16: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Kamikaze was not diving ... Everything has already been created for a long time, and in many non-nuclear warrants. In addition, if there are no gold or uranium pills for tactical aviation, then in the area of ​​the DB the enemy PLO aviation is carried out and the cast-iron battleship is elementarily heated by the submarine.
      (with a tethered balloon for her, if you like, as part of a new concept).
    3. Greyjojo 4 October 2015 19: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Another example is the shelling of Admiral Nakhimov in 61. The latter had armor of 100 mm. as a result of shelling of anti-ship missiles with a blank instead of a warhead! received severe injuries and was decommissioned.
      Modern RCCs are not “thin-walled aluminum blanks,” but systems that have strong penetrating warheads with a speed of up to 2 max. In addition, having the ability to maneuver, they are able to attack ships from optimal directions and angles.
    4. Greyjojo 4 October 2015 19: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Another example is the shelling of Admiral Nakhimov in 61. The latter had armor of 100 mm. as a result of shelling of anti-ship missiles with a blank instead of a warhead! received severe injuries and was decommissioned.
      Modern RCCs are not “thin-walled aluminum blanks,” but systems that have strong penetrating warheads with a speed of up to 2 max. In addition, having the ability to maneuver, they are able to attack ships from optimal directions and angles.
    5. glavnykarapuz 6 November 2015 09: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      SWEET_SIXTEEN where did you get the data aboutin 90% of cases penetration means loss of crew and loss of tank"? Do you have detailed penetration statistics?
      And about "The usual breaking of the side will not give anything - need to wind up under the armor another hundred kilograms of explosives to cause serious damage. "Especially about"need to wind up under the armor"Honestly, I laughed a lot.
      It all looks like a teenage "hundred million times".
      Or nonsense said with a smart look - is not nonsense? wink
    6. The comment was deleted.
  • Alex_59 2 October 2015 06: 50 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    My opponent has introduced a new parameter - “Specific density of the ship”. It is calculated as the ratio of displacement to the volume of the underwater part of the hull (length * width * draft).
    Yes, yes, the opponent introduced this parameter under the influence of emotions, this is technical nonsense, I admit myself a donkey. :-) I'm not afraid to look funny.

    Simply put, there, at an unattainable height, are located the usual decks. With rooms, communications and consoles combat information center. And the superstructure itself acquired the look of a huge multi-storey “box” wide from side to side.
    Oleg, you thought how much this box weighs. I have counted. I advise you to do this, too, so as not to sit in a puddle in the future. Hint - aluminum-magnesium alloys.
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 07: 01 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Alex_59
      I have counted.

      Oh really?
      and how many?

      add. did not forget the ballast?
      and take into account the high altitude of modern ships (which I did not write about, although an important point)
      Quote: Alex_59
      Hint - aluminum-magnesium alloys.

      Burke's all steel

      pay attention - the navigation bridge at the top of the masts of 1155
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 October 2015 09: 08 New
      • 17
      • 0
      +17
      Quote: Alex_59
      Yes, yes, the opponent introduced this parameter under the influence of emotions, this is technical nonsense, I admit myself a donkey. :-)

      No one will ever accept as a donkey a person who has the courage to admit his own mistakes. This is a very rare quality, and even "on the Internet" - even more so. hi
      1. yehat 3 October 2015 01: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        board height has a positive effect on seaworthiness. It is not worth considering it a drawback.
  • dummy 2 October 2015 07: 33 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    My opponent has introduced a new parameter - “Specific density of the ship”. It is calculated as the ratio of displacement to the volume of the underwater part of the hull (length * width * draft).

    I remember even in ancient Syracuse a certain Archimedes used this ratio in order to determine the impurities to gold in the royal crown. The simplicity of this method amazed everyone and was called the "Law of Archimedes." Well, yes, Archimedes is excusable - he loved to swim in the water.

    So the ratio of the mass of displaced water (displacement - it is called that) to the volume of the underwater part of the ship for FLOATING BODIES will ALWAYS be equal to the specific gravity of water. And the different numbers given in the opponent’s article for different ships are a juggling, which hoped for ignorance of physics.
  • Alex_59 2 October 2015 07: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    pay attention - the navigation bridge at the top of the masts of 1155
    Why did you put them next? To show how armored the 1155 is below the unarmored Burke chtoli? Duck 1155 is no less naked than Burke. And if, according to your theory with Burke, everything is clear - all reserves for armor went to add-ons and ballast, then at squat 1155 where did everything go? It’s quite for both modern destroyers ... I don’t understand. Mystic...

    You Oleg explain why, with the same length and width of the RKR, 1164 Ave. weighs 2800 tons lighter than the Cleveland armored LKR? How can this be if Cleveland’s armor goes into the superstructure and mast (and ballast) of Glory? After all, then their VI should be approximately equal, well, not on 2800, will there be a difference?
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 08: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Alex_59
      everything is clear with Burke - all reserves for armor went to add-ons and ballast, then at squat 1155 where did everything go?

      1155 - refers to the destroyers of the third generation, older than Burke by 10 years (what radars and fire control stations for the Dagger are there - a sight for sake)


      weapons on deck
      giant Polynomial, 2 AK-100, 2 turntables, 2 AK-630 batteries with own radars

      moreover, it is nevertheless lighter than Berkov on 1-1,5 thousand tons
      Quote: Alex_59
      How can this be if Cleveland’s armor goes into the superstructure and mast (and ballast) of Glory?

      Glory doesn't have wide add-ons
      but what is - made of aluminum

      all that was - went into service and the SLA of that era, 200 tons of missiles on the upper deck. 1164 is overloaded with various weapons. one 3 air defense system, including Fort with drum launchers - which are 1,5 times heavier and 2,5 times larger than Mk.41 cells with a similar capacity
  • K-50 2 October 2015 08: 23 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The next topic about KAZ tanks says.
    It is necessary to install such systems on ships against anti-ship missiles. Install several systems on-board, increase the power of protective ammunition, range of meters to 200 tons.
    So to speak, the weapon of the last line of defense of the ship. And no armor needed.
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 08: 44 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: K-50
      range of meters to 200-t.

      modern ship riddled with debris of a downed rocket
      how it happened with the frigate "Entrim" in 1983

      about dynamic armor - detonating elements will destroy an unarmored ship, even earlier than a flying rocket
      1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 11: 19 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The fragments of a missile shot down by such a system will not riddle, therefore they are used.
        There was no such system on the Anti-Terme; they are still not very shown.

        An armored ship is destroyed just as easily as an unarmored, large-caliber RCC (or earlier torpedo, ground mine) torpedo warhead unarmored under the keel of an ordinary neuranium warhead. What doesn’t dive, and the tandem does not fall on board, usually with high precision or cassette strikes from above where the armor is weaker in the type of “Javelina”, which even Estonians have seizase, or in the “Paveway” type to disable airfield runways and bunkers which half a century ago was with the Israelites.
        Just about any tank is destroyed by detonation of a large-capacity improvised landmine under it. If so they spend money on a tank, they will spend money on a ship.
        With armor, of course, it’s better than without, but you can remember about the large and beautifully strongly armored Bismarck, which received all its armor and crew from the biplane just at the helm.

        Antenna devices are placed higher as well as sonar lower in order to improve their visibility and not for the sake of "mounting convenience". lol

        The location of the RCC warhead in the middle is not unsuccessful. since the front compartment with the guidance equipment is rather flimsy. winked

        Zumwalt and LCS are specialized ships against countries that still have no serious anti-ship weapons. In order to stupidly shoot with the shore or to be a high-speed mobile platform for a tiltrotor. They generally do not carry anti-ship and even anti-aircraft missile / torpedo missile launchers.

        Designers are very mediocre or they do what they are told - for example, the BOD 1155 two universal guns in front were completely useless ... repeat
        1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 11: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          PS. but by the way, those with weaker reservations at least carry the near surrogate missile defense RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, more ...
        2. glavnykarapuz 6 November 2015 10: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Scraptor, please tell us about "non-uranium Warhead of large anti-ship missiles (or earlier torpedoes, ground mines). "
          Is there uranium?
    2. bk0010 3 October 2015 02: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It will not help against heavy missiles: Granite carries armor, which allows it to withstand the Volcano shells and Sparrow fragments.
  • Monster_Fat 2 October 2015 08: 26 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The author did not understand the reason for the increase in the displacement of modern warships, it seems to him "does not reach." He, like a “ram on a new gate,” ran into a low “layout density” -type “needs to be crammed as much as possible into the reserved volume” and does not understand that this so-called layout density is specially reduced on modern ships: 1) for the CONVENIENCE of service and repair, 2) for greater ergonomics of workplaces, 3) to ensure a comfortable stay and crew life. 4) spare volumes are reserved for additional equipment and upgrades; 5) a large displacement is now not considered to be “evil”, but is considered one of the complex measures to protect a ship — a large ship is harder to sink. He also can’t understand that in fact the electronics are not compact, but rather cumbersome since there are a lot of them on the ship and it requires special “boxes” for installation and maintenance. There are thousands of these “boxes” on the ship. In addition, all electronics are duplicated many times, which requires additional “boxes” of switching and distribution, to which the same should have easy access for maintenance and repair, and all this “eats” the displacement. Those who had to visit the “old” warships of “traditional architecture” and the new-modern western buildings note that it’s like “heaven and earth”: on the old ones, it’s just “not to turn around”, everything is crowded, cluttered with equipment, crawl somewhere, damn everything and everything, living conditions, no. But on modern ones — just beauty — you can freely crawl everywhere, replace, repair, move around wide corridors without fear of killing anything, at work you feel spacious and free. There is nothing to say about living conditions. Is it really so hard to understand that conditions have changed lives after WWII have changed dramatically and now all require COMFORT in everything. And comfort is a displacement.
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 08: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      FOR CONVENIENCE of maintenance and repair, 2) for greater ergonomics of workplaces

      you so diligently explain about large volumes))

      and the funny thing is that the hull of any EBR was larger than that of any modern cruiser of similar sizes
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      spare volumes reserved for additional equipment and upgrades

      if they are, they weigh nothing
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      He also can’t understand that in reality the electronics are not compact, but rather cumbersome

      What is disproved by the existence of mobile C-300 and SAM "Patriot"
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      Those who have been to the "old" warships of "traditional architecture" and the new-modern western buildings note that this is like "heaven and earth":

      still, the crew was reduced by 5-10 times
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      everything is crowded, cluttered with equipment,

      This proves once again that modern equipment is lighter and more compact.
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      as the "ram on a new gate" rested against a low "density of layout" -type "you need to shove as much as possible into the reserved volume"

      quote from the article:

      The highly protected ship of our time will not be like any modern ship or TKR of past eras. Shorter, more stable and roomy corps
      1. Monster_Fat 2 October 2015 09: 50 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yeah, the "floating island", where it is shorter and more capacious. Only correctly write here that the volume is associated with displacement through stability. Large volumes on the surface - require weight compensation due to displacement for stability. If you need large volumes there are only two exits — either a “popovka” or a “submarine”. But the “popovka” is really shitty with speed and controllability. By the way, I heard that for a long time there are "ideal" vessels with "large volumes" - "triangles" - scientific seismic vessels of the Ramform Titan type, but their operation requires a constant operating speed "on the profiles" of no more than 5-6 knots, but more They do not give 11-12 knots at transitions precisely because of the restrictions caused by the shape of the hull. Those who worked there also note their “vile” special pitching, which is impossible to get used to and which is very exhausting.
        1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 10: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Monster_Fat
          that for a long time there are "ideal" vessels with "large volumes" - the "triangles" in their operation require a constant operating speed "on the profiles" of no more than 5-6 nodes, and they do not give more 11-12 nodes at transitions

          These are their problems

          regular housing, with an extension of not more than 6
    2. brn521 2 October 2015 12: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      FOR CONVENIENCE of service and repair

      About Zamvolty they wrote that maintenance and repair will be carried out only at the bases. This reduces the number of crew, which in turn seriously reduces the cost of operation. Arly Berkov half the cost of operation was the salary of the crew. Zamvolta has half the crew.
  • GRAY 2 October 2015 08: 29 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    You can spend dohrenelliard money and build a ship, to some extent, withstanding the impact of modern anti-ship missiles.
    Undoubtedly, this initiates the creation of missiles capable of hitting him, while the cost of the rocket and the cost of the ship will not be comparable. As a result, the likely adversary simply eliminates their backlog with cheaper methods and the money will be wasted.
    The idea looks hopeless.
    Sincerely.
    1. yehat 3 October 2015 01: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      and here you are wrong. First, weapons development is worth something
      secondly, you need to upgrade the media or even build new ones.
      and thirdly, it needs to be done around the globe
      so improving the ship is a good thing.
  • Alex_59 2 October 2015 08: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    what radars and fire control stations for the Dagger are there - a sight for sore eyes
    Wait, wait. Until recently, you were convincing everyone that neglecting the weight of radio electronics could be done easily and as an example you used the S-300P air defense-targeting radar, which weighs about 20 tons, and is located at only one MAZai. And then suddenly the Dagger radar, which is clearly less than Fortovskaya, began to mean something in terms of weight? No, let's agree with your thesis that radio electronics, computers, cables, radars are a trifle compared to the ship’s VI. So low. The issue is in force - where did all the reserves on 1155 that supposedly could go to the armor go? Add-ons - no, no armor, electronics - garbage and not weight, where did that go?
    all that was - went into service and the SLA of that era, 200 tons of missiles on the upper deck. 1164 is overloaded with various weapons. one 3 air defense system, including Fort with drum launchers - which are 1,5 times heavier and 2,5 times larger than Mk.41 cells with a similar capacity
    That is, "all that was put into service", and still it became easier "Cleveland" by 2800 tons? But this is wonderful. The designers of "Glory" are geniuses! They managed to place modern missile weapons (quite cumbersome according to your words, as many as 200 tons of missiles on the upper deck!), And in spite of this, 2800 tons of displacement remained unspent! Oh, if “Glory”, yes, MK.41 - he would probably feel better at 2000.
    1. Engineer 2 October 2015 08: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      in MK41 Volcano is not stuffed. And to equip Glory with Calibriks - to make of a ship with a radius of destruction of 1000 km a castrate with firing at 300 km that is not capable of sinking a US aircraft carrier.
    2. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 09: 01 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: Alex_59
      And then suddenly the Dagger radar, which is clearly smaller than Fortovskaya

      Bigger and heavier. and she is not alone.
      Separate surveillance radar and radar for NLC detection (tackle)
      and Soviet computers of the beginning of the 80's

      there every detail is larger and heavier than on Burke
      Quote: Alex_59
      Until recently, you all convinced that you can easily neglect the weight of electronics

      when and where?
      Quote: Alex_59
      That is, "all that was put into service", and still it became easier "Cleveland" by 2800 tons?

      Cleveland’s one tower weighed like all Glory rockets
      and 8 steam boilers
    3. Rurikovich 2 October 2015 09: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      That is, "all that was put into service", and still it became easier "Cleveland" by 2800 tons? But this is wonderful. The designers of "Glory" are geniuses! They managed to place modern missile weapons (quite cumbersome according to your words, as many as 200 tons of missiles on the upper deck!), And in spite of this, 2800 tons of displacement remained unspent! Oh, if “Glory”, yes, MK.41 - he would probably feel better at 2000.

      But according to Oleg, it was necessary to spend these 2800 tons on the installation of armor! Then it will be a REAL warship lol
  • Engineer 2 October 2015 08: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Again this nonsense about armadillos. I’m wondering why Kaptsov believes that he better understands the role of armor than thousands and thousands of engineers in design bureaus and research institutes, behind which there are already thousands of real warships?
    1. Rurikovich 2 October 2015 09: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It turns out repeat .
  • Urfin 2 October 2015 08: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Question amateur to the author.
    What is the volume of equipment (facilities, machinery, weapons, etc.) that allows the ship to remain a combat-ready unit (to stay afloat and use weapons) now, at 90, 40 and 10?
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 09: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Urfin
      What is the volume of equipment (facilities, machinery, weapons, etc.) that allows the ship to remain a combat-ready unit (to stay afloat and use weapons) now, at 90, 40 and 10?

      as an example
      1. Urfin 2 October 2015 14: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Thanks for the answer. But I'm not quite about that.
        I mean, what needs to be protected on the ship so that it can not only stay on track, but also “see”, use weapons, etc. now and in the past. How exactly these volumes have changed.
        In my opinion, a layman, if the armadillo needed to protect the chassis, cellars and guns (simplified, of course), then the 2MV battleship needed to be protected in addition to the LMS, electrical and wiring, and radar equipment. Now how much the range of equipment has changed, how much has the volume changed?
  • sergo1914 2 October 2015 08: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It’s time for the author to understand the meaninglessness of any armor for modern hypersonic anti-ship missiles. RCC in the last section of the trajectory is an almost armored egg. By means of air defense and missile defense, everything is gnawed outside. Punching an egg (alas) is almost impossible. Even just filling an egg with dynamite with a fuse, we will destroy any ship. The egg does not pierce the armor. It just breaks it. It goes deep inside the case. Then an explosion.
    Let me remind you again “Sheffield”. Ancient Exocet hitting a ship DO NOT EXPLODE. Marriage s. The ship sank.
    There is one unique way to avoid this - the all-metal case. But here other problems open up.
    Comparison with tanks is incorrect.
    PS In 1990-1997 he worked at KBTM. Participated in the design of the Broadsword. So "in the subject." And familiar with the "materiel". As part of the permitted I can advise. Only in PM, please.
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 09: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: sergo1914
      for modern hypersonic CRP

      Do such exist ?!
      Quote: sergo1914
      1990-1997 years worked in KBTM. Participated in the design of the Broadsword. So "in the subject." And familiar with the "materiel".

      hypersonic technology department?
    2. 27091965 2 October 2015 12: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: sergo1914
      It’s time for the author to understand the meaninglessness of any armor for modern hypersonic anti-ship missiles. RCC in the last section of the trajectory is an almost armored egg.


      “In response to the development of foreign means of attack on Soviet warships, reservations, or, according to current terminology, constructive protection began to be revived. All this predetermined the evolution of Soviet aircraft carriers and their main differences from each other. The logical conclusion to the series of ships of Project 1143 was the fourth and most advanced of them - “Baku”, thanks to the introduction of a reservation system for the hangar and other most important parts of the ship, its survivability was significantly increased. The introduction of surface structural protection entailed an increase in the mass of the hull by 1700 tons. ”

      More than 30 years ago, it was decided to introduce a partial reservation, but even the Moscow helicopter carrier, which did not have constructive protection, was supposed to withstand 3-4 hits of missiles with an explosive charge of 500 kg in the freeboard or 2-3 explosions under the bottom of non-contact torpedoes with a charge 420 kg. The introduction of partial reservations increases the survivability of the ship and the ability to complete a combat mission.
  • Alex_59 2 October 2015 09: 25 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Bigger and heavier. and she is not alone.
    Definitely harder? But in the ground-based air defense system "Tor" the same system generally fits on one chassis together with the ammunition, unlike the C-300P. And like these two Daggers of the Dagger complex (well, and there a couple of radars on the tops of the masts) outweigh the all-steel superstructure of Burke? It’s not funny for yourself?
    and Soviet computers of the beginning of the 80's
    But on WWII ships, all this weighed even more - you yourself said. Here: http://topwar.ru/82860-zumwalt-byl-postroen-vreditelyami.html, you write "To increase the effect - analog computers in the combat information center of the cruiser" Belfast "(1939 year). Soviet microcircuits are resting" and even cite bulky computers. And then suddenly you are embarrassed by the conspiracy computers of the beginning of 80's ...
    when and where?
    here http://topwar.ru/82860-zumwalt-byl-postroen-vreditelyami.html in the comment 22 of September 2015 09: 21 you write that the weight of radio equipment, their equipment, cable routes, etc. we know and IT IS DESTROYED IN THE BACKGROUND OF OTHER LOAD ARTICLES.
    And now you have all-steel superstructures of Burke outweighed the dagger AP. Where did you go wrong?
    Cleveland’s one tower weighed like all Glory rockets
    and 8 steam boilers
    That is, anything but your favorite armor? And on the 956 steam boilers are weightless, or is there for another reason that the armor did not fit in?
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 09: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      But in the ground-based air defense system "Tor" the same systems

      not the same
      detection range more than 2 times
      simultaneous shelling of up to 4 targets (against one at Thor)

      dimensions - in the above photo
      Quote: Alex_59
      and HE IS DESTROYED IN THE BACKGROUND OF OTHER LOAD ARTICLES.

      then it was a comparison of the tubs with the "computers" with the Second World War TKR

      Naturally, the “computers” cannot be heavier than the towers of the Civil Code
      Quote: Alex_59
      . And like these two Daggers of the Dagger complex (well, and there a couple of radars on the tops of the masts) outweigh the all-steel superstructure of Burke?

      can't outweigh, xnumx smaller and lighter than burke

      despite the fact that its equipment is much less perfect: outdated power plant, multi-ton missiles on deck, advanced artillery. complex Polynom 800 tons with 30-meter gas

      what is the argument about? the share of weapons and 1155 SLAs is greater than that of Burke, while 1155 itself is smaller and built on 10 years earlier
      Quote: Alex_59
      That is, anything but your favorite armor?

      the dispute began with the words that Slava, unlike Burke, is a representative of another generation, there are no bulky add-ons, all reserves were spent on weapons

      then there was the question - why is Glory easier to Cleveland by 2800 tons
      answer: there is no armor, lighter weapons and mechanisms
      Quote: Alex_59
      And on the 956 steam boilers are weightless, or is there for another reason that the armor did not fit in?

      He is half the size of Cleveland, if that
  • mpzss 2 October 2015 09: 32 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    ! I believe that all ships and other weapons are commissioned by the military, that is, they give the technical specifications and the designers develop the "product", then they (the military) accept this "product" or ask for changes. Accordingly, the arguments of what is bad and what is good for any military “product” are not for us to accept, for this there are whole research institutes and design bureaus that take into account the latest military trends (which we don’t know about, but only guess). Therefore, the article is a sure minus!
  • chunga-changa 2 October 2015 10: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    From empty to empty. As much as you can already, it still does not affect anything.
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 10: 04 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: chunga-changa
      As much as you can already, it still does not affect anything.

      And what is affected by regular reports of the imminent collapse of the dollar and the collapse Ukraine USA
      1. Olezhek 2 October 2015 10: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Ukraine is like the shadow of Hamlet's father ..
      2. Avenich 2 October 2015 12: 00 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what is affected by regular reports of the imminent collapse of the dollar and the collapse of Ukraine, the United States

        By the way, Oleg, as far as we know now in the Mediterranean Sea, a considerable group of our Red Banner is located. Again, the delivery of equipment for the ATO, the evacuation of refugees. As they say the topic right under the pen to ask. How did the lack of an armored belt affect the list of assigned tasks? Or maybe the Ijest system brought our ship to treacherous rock? Isn’t the butt of the submarines? Or God forbid, the F-35 simulated an attack on our very small landing ship, stuffed with dipoles and AVM on lamps? Probably the adversaries follow each step of a single civilian in flares. Tell me, Oleg, in your next article, the truth is the womb to the whole world, you are closer to the sources of information. And honestly, I’ll put a plus for you.
  • Old_Python 2 October 2015 10: 11 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Boring, gentlemen ...
    The author lives cool, dwells in the air. There is no desire to debate, I scrolled the next article diagonally - nothing new ...
    But Partigenigenoss Alex_59, although an amateur (mind you, I didn’t suggest this!), Completely independently derived the coefficient of the ship’s overall completeness δ, slightly confused in determining the product of the ship’s length-width-draft. Of course, this is not the "volume of the underwater part of the body", but the volume of the described parallelepiped; the volume of the underwater hull is exactly equal to the displacement of the ship (in fresh water). It’s quite a working coefficient, it is used in the early stages of design in calculations based on ship theory.
    1. Pauls_77 2 October 2015 14: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Good evening! I support! Honestly, the next argument of the "experts" about the taste of watermelon and how it looks, while they did not see it and did not eat.
      Dear Sirs! If you are not an expert in the field of shipbuilding, or at least do not have a marine engineering background, then do not meddle in this area with smart ideas!
      Of course, I apologize for the harshness, but I'm tired of reading nonsense.
  • sergo1914 2 October 2015 10: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    hypersonic technology department?


    No
  • Rurikovich 2 October 2015 10: 27 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    To summarize a short summary ...
    All this fuss of the author around the armor is connected with proving that booking the hull should provide greater combat stability to the ship. And he is gnawing that the redistribution of the weight loads of modern ships led to the disappearance of the reservation, although the size and total weight in comparison with the "standards" (ships of the WWII period) do not seem to have this. Hence the whole fuss. At the same time, a qualitative change in the composition of weapons and its combat capabilities are not taken into account in comparison with the purpose of armor (although this is all taken for pure faith). That is, a ship with missile armaments at times superior in combat capabilities to an artillery cruiser is considered under-ship because it does not have armor .... And obstinacy in the evidence base evokes mixed feelings. Some volumes of the hull, linked to the displacement and size ... That the Cleveland tower weighs more than the armament of a completely modern destroyer there ... And so on. Almost to the weight of the rivets on the radar ...
    There is such a thing as a causal relationship! You can contact the Design Bureau, where they will give comprehensive explanations WHY there are no belt armor on ships, HOW much armor on modern ships and how it is located, WHY weight loads are distributed this way and not otherwise, WHY one antenna is located higher and the other lower, WHY EVERYTHING IS SO , AND NOT OTHERWISE !!!!!!
    Because there is a reason, but there is a consequence. And if the capital armor of 150 mm is gone, then this was done for some reason. For example, a qualitative change in the alleged weapons, their ability to harm the ship, the appearance of “smart” weapons that inflict selective damage by hitting where you can’t put the armor ... THERE IS A REASON - AN EFFECT! The author stupidly ran into the investigation without searching for a reason. It turns out that the tail wags the dog ... request
    Always, even in the confrontations between armor and shell, the appearance of thicker armor appeared more advanced guns and shells and vice versa. There was always a reason before the investigation. So it should have a reason and lack of water armor. EXACTLY LAST, because there is enough other reservation (anti-shatter) on the ships! So I can only advise the author to look for the EXACTLY cause, and not fight the consequence! And the answer does not lie in “what we ordered, we designed” - this is the level of the sandbox. Now find the reason - and the result will become clear! And this is much more difficult than rinsing in a basin, comparing the displacement of ships of different eras. Crawl out of the sandbox and grow up, looking for answers to your questions, and not overflow from empty to empty
    Yours faithfully, hi
    1. Avenich 2 October 2015 10: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The author stupidly ran into the investigation without searching for a reason.

      But it now begins to seem to me that the author of this opus, as well as many previous ones, sets his task through the emotional component, to find out the performance characteristics of modern anti-ship missiles.
    2. Alex_59 2 October 2015 10: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Oleg’s main mistake is that he confuses cause and effect. He believes that for a ship with dimensions of A x B x C there is a certain limiting and unchanged (for these dimensions) displacement. And designers are obliged to keep within this water treatment even to shoot themselves. Previously, they pushed guns and armor into this limit. And now, for some reason, only rockets, without armor. But the missiles are very light, and this paradox makes Oleg look for some constructive solutions in modern ships that supposedly ate the weight of the armor.

      But in reality the opposite is true. The designers, guided by the TTZ, compose the ship in the given dimensions, as a result, its water is obtained, which actually does not matter to everyone what it will turn out there. No armor - it will be easier, armor will be - heavier. Generally do not care. There are no restrictions on this. Therefore, when the armor was gone, the ships simply became lighter, and that’s all.
      1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 10: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        Therefore, when the armor was gone, the ships simply became lighter, and that’s all.

        They have NOT become easier
    3. yehat 3 October 2015 23: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, the reason is banal: even the Germans in the 30s considered that the increase in the weight of weapons and the corresponding protected carrier leads to a dead end - the proportion regresses
      so whether you want it or not, you will have to refuse reservation and security systems
      In addition, the new equipment, although more compact, is much larger and weighs more (the details have already been given above). No one says that you need to refuse the reservation, it is used as needed.
      And the given examples of the defeat of NATO ships - so they are needed not for war, but for intimidation and window dressing, patrolling and impressing how effective they are with respect to the estimate. They are generally not designed to withstand significant damage.
      The only thing that is being done is protection measures equivalent to 2-sorted minesweepers and improving the struggle for survivability.
      I agree that such a clunker http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2022/154/1600/sea-shadow-140417.jpg
      can be booked, but NO ONE in the west needs it.
      These ships need to carry helicopters, air defense missiles and depth charges.
      Look at what they are armed against the ships: in addition to minor modifications to the tomahawks, there has been nothing new for 20 years.
  • Olezhek 2 October 2015 10: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I read with interest a series of articles about this very armor.

    Not bad, an analysis ... etc. Subject lit on 99,9%.

    Meanwhile, there are other equally interesting topics regarding marine issues. Life is short, art is forever ..

    I would like to see something new. Anticipating possible counterarguments - alas, he himself is not an expert on such specific issues as to tell, for example, about shipboard power plants and their history.
    A power plant is certainly no less important than armor. Well, this is the way.

    The first photo in the article zachOtnoe, so furiously plus.
  • Alex_59 2 October 2015 10: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    answer: there is no armor, lighter weapons and mechanisms
    Hooray!. Bingo!
    That is, all of your articles where you criticize modern shipbuilding concerned only Burke and Ticonderoga. It turns out that only in them the reserves released from the armor went to the growth of add-ons? And all other modern ships (or almost modern ones like 1164) simply lost their armor. Let's say so. Already progress.
    But for example, I took the silhouette of the same Cleveland and put it on the silhouette of Ticonderoga. And he calculated how much all the "protesters" for the silhouette of the Cleveland superstructure weigh on the parts of the Ticonderoga superstructure. Of course approximately. And I got 400 tons with a metal thickness of 8 mm. Well, I thought very roughly, let it be 500 tons. And in your opinion these 500 tons, are those reserves that remained from the withdrawn armor? And for the Glory, which has no superstructure and masts across the entire width of the hull, these same calculations amounted to 300 tons.
    That is, reducing the height of the Ticonderoga add-on to the levels characteristic of WWII, we will be able to release as many 500 tons. What kind of armor do you get at 500 tons? Ballast? Well, God bless him, the ballast is laid there, let 1000 tons. What kind of armor will weigh 1000 tons? Thick foil?
    1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 10: 47 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      That is, all of your articles where you criticize modern shipbuilding concerned only Burke and Ticonderoga.

      it makes no sense to consider all the others, they were built in the absence of modern technology
      Quote: Alex_59
      And I got 400 tons with a metal thickness of 8 mm. Well, I thought very roughly, let it be 500 tons.

      outer side, internal bulkheads, 5 and more levels, decking, gangways, manholes, elevators, communications

      the designers are so insolent that they place everything in the "skyscraper", down to the storage rooms and the GAS posts. while shamelessly increase the elongation of the body (Tika is a separate masterpiece), thereby making it less stable

      the weight goes “up”, stability is violated, in return the proportion of ballast rises
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. PPD
        PPD 2 October 2015 12: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        the designers are so insolent ......................
        while shamelessly ...................

        Here are the rascals !!!
        Where only organs look !!
        Just 58 part 3-10 years without the right to correspondence !!! laughing
      3. sniper 2 October 2015 22: 22 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        . while shamelessly increase the elongation of the body (Tika is a separate masterpiece), thereby making it less stable

        Oleg, in shipbuilding there is such a thing as “length runs” ... You need to understand this so that the longer the ship, the greater speed it can develop (in displacement mode, please do not confuse with gliding), and the greater the ratio of the length of the hull to its width, the lower the resistance to movement. What does it mean to reduce engine power to achieve the same speed ... So, about "shamelessness" is not necessary so categorically. Any technical solution is primarily a compromise ... hi
    2. Alex_59 2 October 2015 11: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it makes no sense to consider all the others, they were built in the absence of modern technology
      What is "modern technology"? Ticonderoga went into operation in the 1983 year, "Bunker Hill" with your favorite MK.41 in the 1986 year. Are you crazy what the hell of a modern technology is the 80 years! 1164, 1155, 956 - it's all out of date obsolete Mr. But Tika Duck not?
      the weight goes “up”, stability is violated, in return the proportion of ballast rises
      How much ballast does Ticonderoga have? Specifically in numbers.
      outer side, internal bulkheads, 5 and more levels, decking, gangways, manholes, elevators, communications
      I counted flooring, ladders, hatches and doors. Communications as you wrote weigh negligible, forget about them. Lifts? I'm generous, we’ll put tons of 100 on the elevators. How much did it work? 500 tons. Yeah, stability is wildly violated, you need a million tons of ballast.
      1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 22: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        What is "modern technology"?

        side-to-side superstructure
        fixed headlamps on the walls
        UVP
        Quote: Alex_59
        Bunker Hill with your favorite MK.41 at 1986

        In fact, since the time of Bunker Hill, they haven’t come up with anything fundamentally new.
        Quote: Alex_59
        1164, 1155, 956 - it's all out of date obsolete Mr. But Tika Duck not?

        They are from a different era.
  • altman 2 October 2015 10: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I think that if you start to book ships again, missiles will immediately appear that will penetrate it. Still simple. As a result, there will be amphibious tanks against which new types of missiles with cumulative charges
    1. Olezhek 2 October 2015 10: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I give a tip - at one time the production of battleships - was a VERY tidbit for business .. repeat

      Some even thought that 1 Worldwide began almost steelmaking companies ...
  • Per se. 2 October 2015 11: 00 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    equal in displacement unarmored destroyer Orly Burke
    Oleg, it is worth noting here that in this case, the Yankees from Burka began to pay more attention to protecting the ship.
    The hulls of the ships of the series for the first time in many years in American shipbuilding practice began to be made almost entirely of high-strength steel, using only individual units and sections of aluminum, in particular, pipes of gas turbine installations and a main mast. The experience of the Falkland War, which revealed the weak protection of British ships with aluminum hulls, as well as a number of fires on their own ships (in particular, the fire on the Belknap missile cruiser that arose on November 22 on 1975 in a collision, pushed to return to the use of steel in the construction of ships of American designers. cruiser with the aircraft carrier "John F. Kennedy" completely destroyed the superstructure of the cruiser and killed 7 people)
    And it’s worth adding.
    Vital combat posts are located below the main deck; REV antenna posts were distributed throughout the ship in order to reduce the likelihood of damage. The anti-submarine sensor control and Tomahawk missile firing control posts are located separately from the 8 BIC. The premises of the GEM, REV and control posts have Kevlar ballistic protection [35]. In total, more than 130 tons of Kevlar (including 70 tons of this durable, but expensive material, is used to protect combat posts) are used to protect the main combat posts and units of each Arly Burke type destroyer during construction.
    The protection of mechanisms and equipment below the structural waterline is also served by local splinterproof reservations of high-strength aluminum-magnesium alloys up to 25,4 mm thick. Plates of these alloys protect the main waveguides, cables, and the most important combat posts (upper tiers of add-ons, BIP rooms, ammunition cellars).
    It should be understood that the resumption of enhanced protection of large surface ships will continue, especially if something happened that once again, following the forgotten events at the Falklands, would demonstrate such a need for a war at sea. The fact that Oleg again and again raises the topic of protecting ships is nothing wrong, I repeat, I would have to choose, all his critics would most likely prefer to be in battle on a ship with “useless” armor than on the same, but “duralumin” "without reservation.
    1. Rurikovich 2 October 2015 13: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      It should be understood that the resumption of enhanced protection of large surface ships will continue, especially if something happened that once again, following the forgotten events at the Falklands, would demonstrate such a need for a war at sea. The fact that Oleg again and again raises the topic of protecting ships is nothing wrong, I repeat, I would have to choose, all his critics would most likely prefer to be in battle on a ship with “useless” armor than on the same, but “duralumin” "without reservation.

      This will not suit Oleg. He is not tormented by the question of how many tons of reservation goes into protecting the BIC or other important parts (because if it is impossible to protect yourself from direct missile hits, then it is quite possible to reduce the consequences of having an anti-shatter reservation), but why there is no belt reservation. After all, the presence of such a ship makes it almost unsinkable. Here is the main thread of his articles. If you take into account that such modern missiles are not even able to penetrate 150-200 mm of armor. Only for some reason, the question immediately arises - what, in order to sink ships, modern rockets must necessarily fall into the waterline? ... And the fact that the leaked weight can go to other expense items that ensure the functionality of the ship is not worth it discussions. Give us belt armor what
    2. bk0010 3 October 2015 02: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Not this way. What to buy: two armored ships or three "dural"?
  • Kalmar 2 October 2015 11: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It was pointed out that 150mm of armor is an insurmountable obstacle for the LCC. But after all, modern anti-ship missiles (say, the same "Harpoon") are trained to make a "slide" in front of the target and to hit the deck (on which you can’t put so much armor) - does this somehow take into account?

    Then, a simple increase in passive protection seems like a dead end. Even a relatively small cumulatively high explosive warhead will be able to penetrate 150-200 mm of armor (the tank’s is pierced), and a decrease in high-explosive action can be compensated by an increase in the number of missiles in a salvo: it (number) can be increased to a much wider extent than the thickness of ship’s armor.

    Finally, there is such an unpleasant thing (for a ship) as the SBN: no armor can withstand a nuclear explosion at the very side.
    1. Alex_59 2 October 2015 11: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And if a rocket makes a slide and uses not a single-block, but a cassette warhead, then all the antenna posts will receive a fluffy northern fox, and the battleship will become a pleasure liner. Question - where does the armor come from? So it goes...
      1. Kalmar 2 October 2015 12: 02 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        By the way, yes. If a coral loses its radar in such a way, then in a swoop it turns into an ordinary target. The armor, of course, will allow this target to swim a little longer, but in the end it doesn’t care less.
        1. Olezhek 2 October 2015 12: 12 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          And if the rocket will make a slide and will apply not monoblock, but a cassette warhead


          I give a tip - before the explosion of a cassette warhead, ALL antennas quickly fold and hide
          under armor ...
          After the explosion - unfold ..

          (nanotechnology - smack them into the root ...) lol
          1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 12: 54 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            And if she begins to fly over the battleship in a circle and while the antennas are hidden fit on the oars of the Chukchi and start a pole mine? request
            1. Olezhek 2 October 2015 14: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              am laughing am lol
              Yes, invincible ships as we see - no.
              For each Yamato, there is a Chukchi with a pole ..
              1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 14: 40 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Isn’t it all one Qigris pilots bombing Washington? good laughing
      2. saturn.mmm 2 October 2015 19: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        And if the rocket makes a slide and uses not a single-block, but a cassette warhead, then all the antenna posts will receive a fluffy northern fox, and the battleship will become a pleasure liner.

        Not really
        at 38 seconds.
      3. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 22: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        And if the rocket makes a slide

        will fall under the fire of the Corticos and Phalanx
        Quote: Alex_59
        then all the antenna posts will have a fluffy northern fox

        discussed more than once
        even in case of loss of the radar, the ship will remain a combat unit
        Quote: Alex_59
        Question - where does the armor come from?

        After such an attack, Burke will immediately burn with the whole crew.
        1. Sukhoi 2 October 2015 22: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Oleg, if you destroy the radar, the ship will certainly not sink and even continue to move. But will he be able to use his weapons and remain combat-ready?
          1. Dart2027 2 October 2015 23: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            This is not the case. The armor gives you a chance not to drown immediately and flee. As for the radar, if it is possible to receive target designation from the side (plane, helicopter, other ship) then it will save.
            1. Sukhoi 2 October 2015 23: 50 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yes, everything is clear with armor.
              Those. the main thing is to launch a rocket, and another ship will highlight the target for it? Is it reality or just theory?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alex_59 2 October 2015 11: 33 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    They have NOT become easier
    Oh, well, that’s almost a diagnosis ...
    We return to the starting point. With equal length and width of the RKR, Glory is lighter than Cleveland by almost 2800 tons. Draft, of course, Cleveland has more, since it is heavier.

    Right word, getting bored ...
    1. Avenich 2 October 2015 11: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      Right word, getting bored ...

      Let me shake your hand! (Without sarcasm)
    2. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 22: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      With equal length and width of the RKR, Glory is lighter than Cleveland by almost 2800 tons

      Length and width have nothing to do with it
      the main determining parameter is displacement

      20380 corvette 1,5 times shorter than Burke
      but their in / and differs FIVE times

      With "Cleveland" it makes sense to compare only equal in / and Zamvolt
  • tasha 2 October 2015 11: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    At one time, a myriad of copies was broken in the discussion of the so-called "Pereslegin Battleship." Whoever, but closer to me the opinion of A.N. Krylov about the invincible Samson.
    It is time.
    You can still read S. Lema - "Invincible."
    This two.
    Modern American aircraft carriers have 150mm waterline armor, armored decks, partitions, and important mechanisms with composite armor. According to the estimates of Soviet sailors, for the failure of such an aircraft carrier, a simultaneous attack of at least 40 anti-ship missiles was required. To disable, not drowning!
    As suggested by the distinguished F. Lisitsyn, cut off the deck, hangar from the aircraft carrier, put armored superstructures - and here you have a floating fortress with the highest combat stability. This is all, of course, good. However .. Having received one K-21 torpedo hit, the Tirpitz stopped the operation and stood for repair for several months, devouring the resources so needed on the fronts. So there is a bolt for every super-duper. For example, the same updated "Whale". And the money spent ...
    These are three ..
    1. PPD
      PPD 2 October 2015 11: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It seems to be believed that the K-21 missed.
      1. Per se. 2 October 2015 13: 14 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: PPD
        It seems to be believed that k-21 missed
        Even if you didn’t miss, the Germans didn’t stop their operation Rosselsprung (horseback riding), in which the battleship Tirpitz and the heavy cruisers Admiral Scheer (pocket battleship) and Admiral Hipper, accompanied by a group of destroyers, took part . After K-21, the German squadron continued to move towards the interception target, the PQ-17 convoy, and was also discovered by the British submarine Anshake. The termination of the operation was caused by the loss of the suddenness factor, and not by the alleged “damage” to the battleship. In addition, the goal of the German operation as a whole was achieved, escort ships left the convoy, and the PQ-17 was defeated by submarines and aircraft, which may have been assumed in this "horseback ride."
      2. Scraptor 2 October 2015 13: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Any Englishman knows what is not ...
    2. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 12: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: tasha
      At one time, a myriad of copies was broken in the discussion of the so-called "Pereslegin Battleship."

      Oh yes ... 38-node battleship with a displacement of 45-50 ct, with a belt of 100-152 mm, 3 three-gun turrets for 12-14 "guns, air defense systems, anti-aircraft missile systems, 4-5 fighters on the corner deck (hello Japanese" battalion hermaphrodites "), REO (which"should significantly exceed that of a modern nuclear cruiser") and extremely lightweight nuclear power plants.
      ... 38-knot full speed speed requires a reduction in bioprotection mass and the installation of a supercritical reactor. (It is possible to use two reactors with a common neutron field and a variable neutron flux coupling coefficient. Such an installation is, of course, unsafe. But we must be aware that a warship is created to fight the enemy, and not to protect the environment. moreover, that the real harm from such a battleship is in any case less than from the supertanker.)

      Note that the proposed power plant allows you to force the power (due to changes in the absorption coefficient of neutrons in the wall separating the reactors). If necessary, you can even turn the battleship into a nuclear firewall.
      1. Per se. 2 October 2015 13: 35 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Oh yes ... 38-nodal battleship with a displacement of 45-50 CT

        If in the comment tasha it was reasonably noted that sinking a ship with enhanced protection would be difficult ("According to the estimates of Soviet sailors, for the failure of such an aircraft carrier, a simultaneous attack of at least 40 anti-ship missiles was required. To disable, not drowning!"), then more or less the essence actually turned to absurdity, using the example of an aircraft carrier with a cut-off flight deck. I read an assessment of the protection features of Italian battleships of the Littorio type, where it was noted that it could be very effective against anti-ship missiles, if these days If you don’t go to extremes, it’s quite possible to imagine an atomic missile cruiser with high protection using the example of a French battleship of the Richelieu type. Remove the main caliber towers, put mines with anti-ship missiles, remove auxiliary and anti-aircraft artillery, also replace everything modern, what will the ship be bad? By the way, it’s “Richelieu” here that turns out to be very close in silhouette and dimensions to our “Peter the Great.” For me, this is much more reasonable than to rest and prove that the defense does not solve anything in modern combat That way, and infantry body armor can be run in, giving countless examples of what bullets they are easy to flash.
        1. tasha 2 October 2015 13: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Unfortunately, you misunderstood the main idea of ​​my comment and hurried with conclusions / assessments.
          1. Per se. 2 October 2015 20: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: tasha
            Unfortunately, you misunderstood the main idea of ​​my comment and hurried with conclusions / assessments.
            I apologize generously, if so.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 October 2015 14: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          ("According to the estimates of Soviet sailors, for the failure of such an aircraft carrier, a simultaneous attack of at least 40 anti-ship missiles was required. For the failure, not drowning!"),

          About 40 anti-ship missiles were required to be issued by AUG (without Aegis, with ships carrying Aegis, the required number of missiles increased to 60-100 according to various estimates). But the constructive defense has nothing to do with this quantity - the point is that from 40-60-100 missiles 32-52-92 anti-ship missiles will be shot down or rejected by electronic warfare, and 8 will fall into the aircraft carrier and either sink it or incapacitate :)
          Aircraft carrier doesn't need 40 hits :)
          Quote: Per se.
          I read the assessment of the protection features of Italian battleships of the Littorio type, where it was noted that it could be very effective against RCC, if it were today.

          Yes - from the Harpoon - Exoset level missiles and all the Otomats there, the side armor of this LC defended quite well. But what's the point?
          Quote: Per se.
          If you do not go to extremes, it is quite possible to imagine an atomic missile cruiser with high protection using the example of a French battleship of the Richelieu type.

          Which will be easily sunk by enemy aircraft. There are no problems with the destruction of an armored (including heavily armored) target by the Air Force. From the word "in general".
          Quote: Per se.
          By the way, it is “Richelieu” here that turns out to be very close in silhouette and dimensions to our “Peter the Great”.

          But neither one nor the other is any optimal means of naval warfare according to the criterion of "price / volume of tasks performed"
          1. tasha 2 October 2015 14: 24 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            But neither one nor the other is any optimal means of naval warfare according to the criterion of "price / volume of tasks performed"

            Just as an educational fact. I don’t remember who considered the German BDB a very successful and effective means of naval warfare by this very criterion.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 October 2015 15: 37 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: tasha
              I don’t remember who considered the German BDB a very successful and effective means of naval warfare by this very criterion.

              It is :) a very good floating tool, and as a gunboat and as a tiny cabot, it is done on the knee and from mosquito forces it is quite biting
            2. Per se. 2 October 2015 19: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: tasha
              I don’t remember who considered the German BDB a very successful and effective means of naval warfare by this very criterion.

              If memory serves, such estimates were in Igor Petrovich Chernyshev’s memoirs when he described the battles of our boats of the MO-4 type with German high-speed landing barges as an armored component of the Shyutskor flotilla.
          2. Per se. 2 October 2015 20: 01 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The order of 40 anti-ship missiles was required to be issued by AUG
            Andrei, I just took a quote from the commentary, as a reference point, coinciding with the problem, it is easy to drown an aircraft carrier.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Which will be easily sunk by enemy aircraft.
            Even if such a cruiser, in turn, will enter the AUG or hide behind its base aircraft?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But neither one nor the other is any optimal means of naval warfare according to the criterion of "price / volume of tasks performed"
            This statement is worthy, as a point of view, but not the axioms of war at sea. In my humble opinion, Oleg in vain associated the title of his article with the phrase "invincible ship", there are no ships that cannot be destroyed. But, there are ships that are more difficult to destroy, and there are tasks for which it is worth increasing the protection of ships, not to mention the priceless lives of sailors, giving them even one extra chance to survive.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 October 2015 21: 24 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              Andrei, I just took a quote from the commentary, as a reference point, coinciding with the problem, it is easy to drown an aircraft carrier.

              Clear :)
              Quote: Per se.
              Even if such a cruiser, in turn, will enter the AUG or hide behind its base aircraft?

              This is a matter of price - as part of the AOG, such a cruiser will be protected no worse than any other AUG ship, but it will not be a priority target during an attack. Those. ceteris paribus, the target will still be an aircraft carrier, and in order to cover it with a pair of destroyers it will be more useful than a super cruiser, and will cost less.
              At the same time, the tasks of such an armored cruiser in the AUG will not be fully understood. As an attack ship in naval combat, it is not too good (aviation and submarines are more effective), but as an arsenal it is useful, of course, but why does it need armor in this form?
              Quote: Per se.
              This statement is worthy, as a point of view, but not the axioms of war at sea.

              You rarely see such a correct expression of disagreement! drinks
              Quote: Per se.
              In my humble opinion, Oleg in vain associated the title of his article with the phrase "invincible ship"

              That's for sure :)))
              I remember a story about how our naval department after Tsushima filled up with floodlights of all kinds of "unsinkable-indestructible" ships (and where without amateur shipbuilders who know everything better than professionals?) And they had to rake these heaps, and even give them justified the answers ...
              - But what is it !!! - cried one officer brought to a white heat, an officer:
              - We have the Tsar Bell, which does not ring, the Tsar Cannon, which does not shoot, the Tsar-ship, which does not swim, the Tsar-Tsar, who does not rule ...
              1. Santa Fe 2 October 2015 22: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                but as an arsenal - useful, of course, but why would he need armor in this form?

                The modern destroyer carries fillings of 2 billion dollars.

                И almost always act alone
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 October 2015 22: 37 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  The modern destroyer carries fillings of 2 billion dollars.

                  Modern Arly costs so much.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  And almost always act alone

                  In the movie "Sea Battle"? laughing So there seemed to be several laughing
                  1. Santa Fe 3 October 2015 05: 26 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Modern Arly costs so much.

                    3-series Burkov pull on all three lard
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    In the movie "Sea Battle"?

                    Which AUG included Cole and the famous Donald Cook and associates?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2015 11: 36 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      3-series Burkov pull on all three lard

                      Well, perhaps the whole third series, but are we talking about a single destroyer? Where does this infa come from about three yards, Oleg?
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Which AUG included Cole and the famous Donald Cook and associates?

                      Cole acted as part of the ACG with John Stennis in Persian, then as part of the ACG of the aircraft carrier George Washington, so what?
                      1. Santa Fe 3 October 2015 20: 48 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Where does this infa come from about three yards, Oleg?

                        AMDR, protection against biological weapons, unmanned bathyscaphes and many other tasty things
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Cole acted as part of the ACG with John Stennis in Persian, then as part of the ACG of the aircraft carrier George Washington, so what?

                        And why didn’t he cheerfully report about Cook?
                        Not found? Or instead of AUG found a "Mediterranean missile defense patrol"? )))

                        And in which Aug did the destroyers fire on Libya (2011)? And where was the nearest nimitz
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 October 2015 23: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        AMDR, protection against biological weapons, unmanned bathyscaphes and many other tasty things

                        Oleg, unmanned bathyscaphes, plowing the vast expanses of the oceans - that's fine, give me a link about three yards :)
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And why didn’t he cheerfully report about Cook?

                        Oleg, the conversation began with the fact that you managed to say about the destroyers
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And almost always act alone

                        So it became interesting to me with what happiness the AUG escort crews suddenly turned into single raiders. That in some situations the destroyer can operate outside the AUG, I know that sometimes it can even go by itself at all, only the key word here is "sometimes." You managed to say - "ALWAYS", well, so you justify it.
                      3. Santa Fe 5 October 2015 05: 23 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        you give a link about three yards :)

                        Sam LaGrone of Jane's Navy International writes that according to the latest projections, the new Flight III versions of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer could cost between $ 3 and nearly $ 4 billion apiece, as much as double today's Flight II version.
                        http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/16/report-cost-spike-for-navys-next-ddgs/

                        about the same cost as modern Burke, taking into account the ammunition ($ 2-4 million for each missile), helicopters and other "unincluded" expense items
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So it became interesting to me with what happiness AUG escort crews suddenly turned into single raiders

                        with the advent of UVP they became universal and completely autonomous

                        it is no coincidence that an order was issued for the development of RRM LRASM
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You managed to say - "ALWAYS", well, so you justify it.


                        It’s because you started to pull the rubber -
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is a matter of price - as part of the AOG, such a cruiser will be protected no worse than any other AUG ship, but it will not be a priority target during an attack. Those. ceteris paribus, the target will still be an aircraft carrier, and in order to cover it with a pair of destroyers it will be more useful than a super cruiser, and will cost less.
                        At the same time, the tasks of such an armored cruiser in the AUG will not be fully understood.

                        And then it's time to remind that such a cruiser will exclusively RARELY act as part of the AUG - just like Burke
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 October 2015 10: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/16/report-cost-spike-for-navys-next-ddgs/

                        Oleg, according to your link (from 2011), a certain Sam Lagroun states that Arly’s recent projects can cost 3-4 billion, i.e. twice as much as today's Arly. At the same time, as I understand it, on the project that Sam is talking about should be no longer An / Spy, but a more advanced radar? So the cost of modern Arly (2A) this project has very little relationship.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        about the same cost as modern Burke, taking into account the ammunition ($ 2-4 million for each missile), helicopters and other "unincluded" expense items

                        Maybe so, but where is the link? laughing
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        with the advent of UVP they became universal and completely autonomous

                        Oleg, where did you see Arly without UVP?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It’s because you started to pull the rubber -

                        Read ATTENTIVELY necessary.
                        About the atomic-armored cruiser, I wrote:
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Which will be easily sunk by enemy aircraft. There are no problems with the destruction of an armored (including heavily armored) target by the Air Force. From the word "in general".

                        In response to this, my opponent suggested considering this cruiser in the AUG or under the cover of coastal aviation
                        Quote: Per se.
                        Even if such a cruiser, in turn, will enter the AUG or hide behind its base aircraft?

                        And then I started to "pull the rubber" about AUG :)
                        And then you came and started telling tales about "solo swimming"
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And then it's time to recall that such a cruiser will exclusively RARELY act as part of the AUG

                        Add - and once (because outside the AUG he was a Khan in the first battle with aviation)
  • Alexey RA 2 October 2015 15: 24 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Per se.
    I read the assessment of the protection features of Italian battleships of the Littorio type, where it was noted that it could be very effective against RCC, if it were today.

    This sounds especially good if you remember that it was the battleship of the Litorio (Roma) type that was the only WWII LC sunk by guided weapons. smile
    Quote: Per se.
    If you do not go to extremes, it is quite possible to imagine an atomic missile cruiser with high protection using the example of a French battleship of the Richelieu type. Take away the towers of the main caliber, put the mines with anti-ship missiles, remove the auxiliary and anti-aircraft artillery, also replace it with everything modern, what will be a bad ship?

    And in response, the enemy changes the anti-ship missile attack algorithm to “a hill strike with correlation recognition of the most vulnerable parts of the ship.” For example, with guidance to the area of ​​mines with anti-ship missiles. And resumes work on LRASM-B.
    1. Per se. 2 October 2015 20: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      This sounds especially good if you remember that it was the battleship of the Litorio (Roma) type that was the only WWII LC sunk by guided weapons
      Your truth, Alexei, the Roma was sunk by two heavy radio-controlled, armor-piercing planning air bombs FX-1400 (bomb weight 1570 kg, explosives 300 kg) dropped from German Do-217 bombers. The first bomb hit the deck of the forecastle, the second, also from the bow, into the engine room, the ship broke down from a series of explosions of the ammunition of the 152 mm and 381 mm guns. The battleship was after repair, and, indeed, the only battleship sunk by the FX-1400 bombs, but not the only one attacked by them, the Littorio (renamed "Italy") also received one direct hit with a planning bomb on the deck of the forecastle, the second bomb exploded near port side. “Littorio” reached Malta, where the Italian ships were going to surrender to the allies. It makes no sense to argue that from bombs any, even the most protected ship, will not be whole, and under a certain set of circumstances, even one single bomb, not even the largest one, can cause the death of a large ship.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      And in response, the enemy changes the RCC strike algorithm to “hit from the hill”
      I repeat, this is not about armor for the sake of armor, but about improving protection. The armor here does not have to be associated with the main defense, but it can and should be part of the ship’s defense, if this protection increases survivability, gives extra chances to survive for sailors, to complete a combat mission. If you refuse to understand, take into account, all disputes will be futile "conversations" of the deaf with the dumb.
  • Assistant 3 October 2015 01: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I read the assessment of the protection features of Italian battleships of the Littorio type, where it was noted that it could be very effective against RCC, if it were today.


    Yes, it would not be effective.
    Firstly, there will be no worthy adversary for such a ship. Because if such a ship (a modern armored missile battleship) is sunk, then you need to immediately run into the room behind the pressure seal - you can do it in time. And you can drive the Papuans unarmored - they have so far no funds for the sinking of large unarmored ships with a stable repeatable result.
    Secondly, just in case, those very worthy opponents had a warhead long ago for the missile used, capable of breaking through any existing or promising armor. Any from the word in general. Half-megatons in PKKR of individual guidance - the diameter of the funnel in dry soil is 300 meters. Such a 10 meters to the booked battleship fly up - will evaporate it from side to side.
  • Kalmar 2 October 2015 14: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    According to the estimates of Soviet sailors, for the failure of such an aircraft carrier, a simultaneous attack of at least 40 anti-ship missiles was required. To disable, not drowning!

    I modestly note that the value of "40 anti-ship missiles" was determined by the powerful AUG defense, and not the armor of the aircraft carrier itself.
    1. tasha 2 October 2015 14: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Of course, I agree. I met somewhere the number of 10-12 hits. I can lie too.
    2. Scraptor 2 October 2015 14: 21 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Are the planes on it also armored? The escort is choked on by interference, a bucket of tungsten fractions or uranium rods is poured over the speakers themselves (there are still options) and then they are extinguished from the water cannons until something has arrived under the keel so that it does not spoil the environment with its appearance - the 20th problem is completely solved tactical aircraft, even with a breakthrough of 12 security aircraft managed to be in the air. wassat
      In principle, escort is suppressed as ground-based air defense systems, with the complication due to the fact that there are no terrain folds in the open sea, and with the simplification of the fact that submarines do not fight on land.
      There should be no large aircraft carriers. When attacking him, his air wing from his hold just won’t be able to go to war ... But America is not looking for easy ways (so that others can equal it), and the USSR in order to limit its global influence was completely armed with arms .

      Someone is going to justify their minus? tongue
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 October 2015 15: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        a bucket of tungsten shot or uranium rods pours out over the speakers themselves

        Cast iron bombs. Or better than rubber ones - they will bounce off decks coolly and will not sink into the sea, so that they can be caught for reuse.
        Quote: Scraptor
        Someone is going to justify their minus?

        Words can not help you.
        1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 17: 37 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          From such a height, aviation aluminum and rubber will not seem a little.

          You will not understand with pictures.
      2. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 15: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        Are the planes on it also armored? The escort is choked on by interference, a bucket of tungsten fractions or uranium rods is poured over the speakers themselves (there are still options) and then they are extinguished from the water cannons until something has arrived under the keel so that it does not spoil the environment with its appearance - the 20th problem is completely solved tactical aircraft, even with a breakthrough of 12 security aircraft managed to be in the air.

        Where did you get 12 planes?
        The depth of air defense AUG is 400-600 km. While carriers and anti-ship missiles will overcome it, not only scramble, but also reserve vehicles will have time to rise from the deck.

        In addition, for EW you will not have monsters based on cargo vehicles, but less powerful vehicles based on missile carriers. Which will need to not only crush ship's air defense, but also ensure the security of the strike group from the enemy’s IA.
        Quote: Scraptor
        In principle, escort is suppressed as ground-based air defense systems, with the complication due to the fact that there are no terrain folds in the open sea, and with the simplification of the fact that submarines do not fight on land.

        Ground-based air defense systems do not maneuver in the firing process.
        Quote: Scraptor
        There should be no large aircraft carriers. When attacking him, his wing from his hold simply does not have time for war ...

        Yeah ... that's just small and in the middle of AB get outdated much faster - new aircraft either don’t fit on them at all, or they get in completely insufficient quantities. Large "Midway", laid back in WWII, participated in the "Desert Storm". And their contemporaries either went to the needles or went to rot in the fleets of minor countries.
        Save on displacement - lose on the need to build a new ship for new aircraft. Or on the need for conscious deterioration of the performance characteristics of aircraft in order for them to fit on the old AB.
        1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 17: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          From there, when the scramble starts to rise, the attacking group will release its stuffing.
          I have not written anything about missile carriers.
          Those air defense systems that do not maneuver do not survive. A rocket or KAB also does not fly in a straight line.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Uh-huh.

          Yeah ... Just something over the past 40 years, not a single one has become outdated, but many new ones have appeared.
          As much as fit in a big one, almost as much with it will burn so big and go under water. As many aircraft should be based on an aircraft carrier as it can quickly take off from an alarm, plus the amount that is in the below-deck hangar at the service.
          1. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 18: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            From there, when the scramble starts to rise, the attacking group will release its stuffing.

            Fine. This means that CAP will take care of the carriers, and scramble with reserve will shoot heavy missiles (since we have a launch range of 400-500 km, then this missile cannot be light).
            Quote: Scraptor
            Those air defense systems that do not maneuver do not survive. A rocket or KAB also does not fly in a straight line.

            You do not understand. SAM air defense and the vast majority of the troops firing from a stationary position. They need to turn around in position, complete the cycle "detection - capture - tracking - launch - defeat - reload", curl up and leave. This "fixed" time allows you to work effectively on air defense elements with the help of PRR and other means of destruction (including missile defense with GPS guidance). Even when the radar is off.
            Naval air defense systems are always moving. Even when it’s firing. And so all the little things about PRR with remembering the target’s location when the capture is broken does not work against it. Likewise, GPS guidance does not work. So, the effectiveness of naval air defense systems for active air defense penetration means is lower.
            Quote: Scraptor
            Yeah ... Just something over the past 40 years, not a single one has become outdated, but many new ones have appeared.

            Large are not outdated. But all the “Invincibles” have already been written off.
            I'm not talking about the Kuzyu, which, instead of re-equipping it with the next modification of the heavy machines of the Su family, received the “light-medium” MiG-29.
            Quote: Scraptor
            As much as fit in a big one, almost as much with it will burn so big and go under water. As many aircraft should be based on an aircraft carrier as it can quickly take off from an alarm, plus the amount that is in the below-deck hangar at the service.

            This is true for Kuzi and other pre-Avian carriers. For large AVs with AWACS, the safe time for raising an air group increases significantly.
            By the way, do you remember the pace of takeoff from a big AB? 1 car in 15 seconds for cars on the flight deck.
            1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 19: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Do I have something written about 400-500 km?
              And can an attack on a non-floating aerodrome by aviation forces be carried out in principle? winked Which also does not burn and does not sink ... His lane is certainly motionless, but the speed of AB can be neglected in comparison with the plane.

              No, you do not understand it. Of those air defense systems that launched a rocket and then were delayed for 5 minutes, the crew no longer has time to jump out.
              If the missile is homing or CAB, then it will find the ship without any disconnected GPS, just like missiles from the ship find the plane. Moreover, the plane will dodge them easier than the ship.

              The invincibles were written off by wear or “as unnecessary,” the Spaniards are now doing even less water displacement. The Argentine aircraft carrier was also a smaller invincible.
              It’s bad that Kuzya received such planes ... In the MiG-29, a lot has been sacrificed compared to the Su-27 for flying from field airfields. Isn’t this a paved deck on this ship?

              AWACS is made on the basis of a fast helicopter or tiltrotor.

              Quote: Alexey RA
              By the way, do you remember the pace of takeoff from a big AB?

              By the way, I remember - much less often ...

              There shouldn’t be anything superfluous in a classic aircraft carrier - a pair of elevators in the bow and stern, from one of which to the other on the deck (and not just in the hangar), the planes stand with herringbone for its entire length, which is equal to the distance of the aircraft landing in the aerofiners. After which the aircraft queues on the deck or leaves on the bow lift in the "clip" down.

              Super-bearers to the world community are imposed as an ideological stamp, allegedly because only America has the ability to build them, and there should not be any other AB classes in the world.
        2. bk0010 3 October 2015 02: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The Americans have no naval aircraft capable of intercepting the Granite on a low trajectory. Even like the F-14 could not cope, and they were all written off.
    3. Per se. 2 October 2015 21: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Kalmar
      I modestly note that the value of "40 anti-ship missiles" was determined by the powerful AUG defense, and not the armor of the aircraft carrier itself.
      Nevertheless, even the armor plays an important role here, if the battleships Yamato and Musashi hadn’t had powerful armor, they wouldn’t have required dozens of direct hits by American bombs and torpedoes to drown them. The protection of a modern aircraft carrier, even in passive quality, also creates problems for its easy destruction.
      1. Kalmar 2 October 2015 22: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Nevertheless, even the armor plays an important role here, if the battleships Yamato and Musashi hadn’t had powerful armor, they wouldn’t have required dozens of direct hits by American bombs and torpedoes to drown them. The protection of a modern aircraft carrier, even in passive quality, also creates problems for its easy destruction.

        I do not deny, armor also plays a role, but this is the very, very last echelon. In the event of a breakout of an anti-aircraft defense of any single RCC, booking will help minimize damage, but if it comes to “dozens of hits”, the aircraft carrier’s affairs are very bad. Especially if you remember that some of the flying RCC can carry a good portion of a peaceful atom.

        I also note that specifically an aircraft carrier does not have to be blown up, like the same Yamato. It is enough to damage the flight deck (and you cannot cover it with armor), and the pride of the American Navy turns into an ordinary barge, which can then be relatively calmly finished off.
        1. Dart2027 2 October 2015 23: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          but this is the very last train

          Of course. The question is how much it makes sense to set.
  • bk0010 3 October 2015 02: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I heard other numbers: 20-24 “Granites” are squeezed by “Aegis” in a salvo, 5 are enough to get into AB (without using special b / h, which were usually provided for 4-6 in a salvo)
  • Riv
    Riv 2 October 2015 11: 53 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I didn’t really get it, what is the article about? A lot of armor - bad, a little - is also bad, a high superstructure - loss of stability, low - the ship goes blind ... Kamoads, what are you talking about? And if they’re so smart, why don’t you build?

    Want a crazy idea? The hull of the ship must be removed under water. Absolutely. Leave only the add-on with antennas and controls at the top. Rockets can also be launched from under water. An anti-ship missile under water is useless. Shells, too, will not reach. If necessary, you can emerge and develop cruising speed. :))) And if you also attach wings, you get an ekranoplan. Then it will not catch up at all.
    1. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 12: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Riv
      Want a crazy idea? The hull of the ship must be removed under water. Absolutely. Leave only the add-on with antennas and controls at the top.

      Stepan Karlovich Dzhevetsky and Cesidio Angelovich Del-Simply approve! smile
    2. PPD
      PPD 2 October 2015 12: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Something has already been implemented. Submarines pr 949 called. Only a balloon about which Kaptsov advocated no. And the wings have not yet been attached. And when the armor is hung on it, then finally there will be a plague.
    3. Vadim237 2 October 2015 20: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Such an idea was in the 60s a hybrid of a submarine and a hydrofoil ship, but it was abandoned because of the high cost and complexity.
  • okroshka79 2 October 2015 12: 14 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Articles by Oleg Kaptsov personally turned into morning fun for me. I always wait to have fun again with another fabrication. Only, right, I don’t understand - either laugh, or yawn from boredom. You are on the right track, comrade! And, paradoxically, this would not sound, the more scientific-looking calculations supported by photographs in the article, I note good quality, the funnier it all looks. Dear, it would be high time for you to work in any domestic design organization. You can choose from: Nevsky Design Bureau, SPKB, Diamond, Zelenodolsk Design Bureau. Have you been invited there yet? No? And one more piece of advice - hire a contractor for the fleet for a five-year floating crew. Then, perhaps, with your indefatigable craving for writing about ships, there is really something sensible and, most importantly, useful for the fleet, write. So to speak, from your personal experience. About the technical aspects of your articles have already been written above by others, it makes no sense to repeat. I have the honor!
    1. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 16: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: okroshka79
      Dear, it would be high time for you to work in any domestic design organization. You can choose from: Nevsky Design Bureau, SPKB, Diamond, Zelenodolsk Design Bureau.

      Hehehehe ... kind you. Could OKB-5, OKB-172 and OKB-196 to offer. laughing
  • brn521 2 October 2015 12: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Olezhek
    The topic is covered by 99,9%.

    On the contrary, the topic is poorly covered. We need to take "Maxim Gorky" and begin to bring it to the level of "Arly Burke", with numbers and illustrations. Then it will be sufficiently clear and understandable that Oleg (and not only he) will finally calm down.
    1. Olezhek 2 October 2015 12: 48 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      For wide reader drinks - Articles + comments - give more than enough information. I agree it is not interesting.
  • alovrov 2 October 2015 12: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    150 mm of armor steel is a guaranteed protection against any RCC in practice (Harpoon, Exochet, NSM, Yingji, X-35).

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

    The T-VI frontal armor was also a guaranteed protection against almost any means of the beginning of the 40's. And why in general rational tilt angles, if not already break through? But how long did it last? It is very good that Aders and Porsche were as "perspicacious" as respected Oleg.
  • Greyjojo 2 October 2015 13: 17 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    KG / AM
    offset for the pictures,
    author - better tell me why during WWII megabronded wunderwafers drowned like kittens?
    Bismarck, Yamato, Musai and all were sunk not by "mega cool" artillery, but by air bombs and torpedoes.
    this is when there were no missiles ... In Modern Slovenia, the mega battleship will not come close to modern missile cruisers.
  • Max40 2 October 2015 13: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    https://hi-tech.mail.ru/news/blind-weapon/ О как )))
  • Koshchei 2 October 2015 13: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And that everyone settled down the anti-ship missiles, but the anti-ship missiles began to leave when aviation appeared and there were no bombs on top of the ship, because they were on board. By the way with tanks, the situation is symmetrical on the roof of the armor a little.
  • Leeder 2 October 2015 13: 47 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: dumkopff
    b) Just against cumulative ammunition - ships provide a wide scope for the use of exploded reservations.

    Cumulatives are completely useless against ships! How many holes will need to be made with a diameter of 1-2 cm to drown a ship? Moreover, this must be done in different unsinkable compartments, otherwise the crew will simply close up the holes, and if they are in one compartment, they can be sacrificed and flooded.

    The T-VI frontal armor was also a guaranteed protection against almost any means of the beginning of the 40's. And why in general rational tilt angles, if not already break through? But how long did it last? It is very good that Aders and Porsche were as "perspicacious" as respected Oleg.

    With ships, focus with angles is much more complicated due to the design, and any penetration of armor for a tank is fatal, either the crew is affected or it causes a fire. But the ship, if not hit the ammunition, the main thing is not to drown, since the crew is much larger and can be repaired. Therefore, anti-ship missiles must have a strong explosive effect in order to damage the "inside" of the ship.
    Those. for anti-ship missiles there are no cumulative, sub-caliber shells (purely for example), and crowbars, etc. since there is not much harm from them for the ship.
    1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 14: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Have you seen how the CAB (including high-explosive cumulative tandem) break through a concrete airfield bunker? Also, flying into the compartment, they will cause a camouflage explosion, and get into the right one.
      Tanks floating usually "no" ...
      1. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 16: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Scraptor
        Tanks floating usually "no" ...

        The joke is that a floating tank (for example, PT-76) turned out to be much more resistant to cumulative PSUs - a lower density of the layout and large internal volumes led to the fact that the cumulative stream when entering the tank was much less likely to get into the HPL or did not reach them.
        1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 17: 29 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          urgently all with MBT change to him ...
          1. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 17: 43 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Scraptor
            urgently all with MBT change to him ...

            And we take everything from the enemy from the BC except for godfathers. smile
            1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 18: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And why is that? Light BT is better sewn by them ... But you are away from the topic.
  • kalach 2 October 2015 14: 20 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    A significant portion of Kaptsov’s critics begin their analysis with stunning arguments, such as “boring” or “reading diagonally.” So why do you critics think that I should spend time reading your verbal diarrhea if you yourself have not bothered reading the original article? If you even knocked out a serena in your Bosko for at least a second, which completely blocks your thinking when mentioning words such as “armor” or “constructive defense”, you would notice that Kaptsov does not claim that cruisers and battleships 70 years ago modern ships will roll out into a thin pancake, and the fact that at the modern level of technology shipbuilders manage to make iPhones the size of a suitcase and the strength of a crystal glass. Especially talented. They say that RCC SUDDENLY make a slide and hit ships not in a hypothetical armored belt, but in the deck! Unbelievable! But the fact that on the "unsinkable battleship" of the future can apply a reservation scheme different from the ships of the beginning of the last century, it somehow does not occur to them.
    1. Scraptor 2 October 2015 14: 46 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In the middle of the last century, a different booking scheme for battleships did not save the bombs.
      RCC do not have to do a slide - the Israelis in 1967 bombed the runway of airfields with a shaver. Also, in miniature without making a slide, the Javelin ATGM is now working.

      Where did the Taoist go? Siren due to the fact that all this has been discussed in general more than once ...
    2. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 16: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: kalach
      Especially talented. They say that RCC SUDDENLY make a slide and hit ships not in a hypothetical armored belt, but in the deck! Unbelievable! But the fact that on the "unsinkable battleship" of the future can apply a reservation scheme different from the ships of the beginning of the last century, it somehow does not occur to them.

      Yeah ... and physics, different from the beginning of the last century. smile
      Kamrad, as soon as you begin to book a deck on an equal footing with the board, you immediately run into the growth of the mass of booking and problems with stability. Area growth * thickness increase -> mass increase.

      Plus, on modern ships, the area of ​​vulnerabilities that cannot be properly reserved is much larger - just remember the same UVP with their covers. This is not the roof of the tower; lids must be opened. smile
      1. kalach 2 October 2015 19: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Even the light Cleveland had a 5 cm armored deck. And above the armored deck there are four more three-gun towers with a total weight of one thousand tons - and imagine: it did not roll over! That's because wizards were shipbuilders in the last century. Probably their secrets are forever lost, as well as the recipe for gnome steel. But seriously, no one here is trying to prove that the “21st century battleship” will be absolutely invulnerable, but when the area of ​​vulnerabilities is limited to several hatches or the entire ship, the difference in battle is very noticeable. And finally, missiles can be launched horizontally, from casemates, or even vertically downward, there is nothing technologically improbable here. Of course, you can argue that modern weapons are highly accurate, they can fly into a specific window, and so on. However, every extra maneuver of an attacking missile will give extra moments for missile defense systems to bring it down, or for electronic warfare systems to confuse the guidance head and lead it away from the ship’s weak spots or even plunge it into the water.

        Ships equipped with constructive protection designed for the realities of modern missile weapons will not lose anything in the worst case compared to their crystal counterparts, and at best will give them enough survivability to allow the ship to at least use up its ammunition in battle with a classmate.
  • link 2 October 2015 16: 14 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    I read the article as a funny nonsense. The author would still remember the sailboats ...))
    But seriously, in modern warfare at sea, it is not armor that is needed, but means to detect the enemy to detect him earlier than you, and weapons with which to strike and defend yourself from enemy attacks. Roughly speaking, the whole modern battle comes down to the formula "who will hit someone faster." That is, the protection of the ship is its ability to quickly hit the enemy. As for the survivability of the ship after its defeat by the enemy (which is quite possible), survivability is provided not by armor, but by a large number of waterproof compartments and the coherence of the crew in the struggle for survivability.
  • okroshka79 2 October 2015 16: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Dear Alexey RA! As having served my life in the Navy (19 years in the Northern Fleet), I really appreciate humor. Without it, on the ship, you can occasionally "shkertanutsya". As for the scarab, by the nature of the service I was personally acquainted with one chief designer of a very serious product, which in all seriousness voiced that these (sharak, however, like the product) brought very great benefit to the defense capabilities of our aircraft and fully justified them. So maybe you are right.
    1. Alexey RA 2 October 2015 18: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: okroshka79
      Dear Alexey RA! As having served my life in the Navy (19 years in the Northern Fleet), I really appreciate humor. Without it, on the ship, you can occasionally "shkertanutsya".

      Thank you for your humor. drinks
      Quote: okroshka79
      As for the scarab, by the nature of the service I was personally acquainted with one chief designer of a very serious product, which in all seriousness voiced that these (sharak, however, like the product) brought very great benefit to the defense capabilities of our aircraft and fully justified them. So maybe you are right.

      So sharagi introduced not from a good life. It was a logical result of the “free life of designers” in the 30s - when the state looked through all fingers at all their jumps and eccentrics, if only they would give out anything. And designers using state money often did anything except fulfilling the requirements of the Customer’s requirements.
      The end is a bit predictable: the state is tired of getting either frankly idle samples or products requiring long-term refinement for their money (for example, a heavy machine gun was finished for 9 years, a divisional gun for 5 years, an anti-tank gun for 6 years). And the state decided to limit the flight of design thought and force them to design what they were given TK.
  • Volga Cossack 2 October 2015 17: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    thank. the whole series of articles is very interesting ........ this is how truth is born.
  • DimanC 2 October 2015 21: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Indeed, the author’s position is just like Zadornov: “one against the wind”, I want an armored ship, and that’s it :-) Moreover, size matters! Only now, with comparative articulation, the author, for some reason, forgot that the battleships until the generation of the 30s were designed for single hits of large-caliber "suitcases". Because the accuracy of hitting 5% was already considered almost the limit of dreams. Then the goal was just a "ship". Only the creation of military radars allowed a radical change in the situation. And then, in all cases, the ship could keep its own caliber at a distance "a little closer than beyond the horizon." I even had to invent “free maneuvering zones” so that I wouldn’t fly inadvertently. But when the dive-bombers and torpedo-bombers appeared, the days of the classic battleships were numbered: these "little ones" were able to bring the aiming point to a distance of just a few hundred meters, where it was easier to get in than to miss. And most importantly, they beat where the ship was almost impossible to book. And do not care that for the sinking of the same pits the Americans used 200-300 planes each - the Americans could provide such a density of fire and did. And the boastful statements that the same Worspite withstood the guided bomb hit - well, what can I say, the Germans did not have 3-4 ready-made bombs, so the ship was lucky. Would, would drown. So it turns out that even in those days when the battleship, it would seem, still dominated the sea, even then the quality of air defense was valued higher than the availability of armor, and the battleships no longer carried out operations without aircraft cover. So is it any wonder that with the development of anti-ship missile weapons, the direction of thought was aimed precisely at creating active defense? What for to defend multi-millimeter armor, if at the present level there is no problem attaching a rocket engine and guidance system to a 1200 kilogram Iowa shell that will ensure penetration of> 600 mm of armor when it’s hit any place in the ship ?! So it turns out that it’s easier to make the most advanced air defense-missile defense and put in anti-shatter bulkheads. Than modern designers and zanayutststsa ...
  • shurup 2 October 2015 23: 26 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Why should the author not worry about booking modern fighter jets?
    After all, it is a disgrace that undermining a fragmentation warhead missile several tens of meters from the target puts the apparatus out of order.
    Let them shoot at fighters with cumulative ammunition and only with a direct hit on target.
  • Operator 3 October 2015 00: 46 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The final line under the 60 belt / deck armor years ago was brought by the anti-ship cruise missile KSSC "Pike". The AM-5A turbojet with a thrust of 2,6 tons was used as a marching rocket engine. The missile was equipped with an inertial guidance system in the main flight section and an active radar homing system in the final flight section at 10-15 km from the target. The weight of the rocket without a launch accelerator was 2,5 tons. Cruising speed - 280 m / s, range in fuel reserve - 120 km. The warhead had a sturdy hull and weighed 650 kg, of which 320 kg explosive.

    At a distance of 750 meters from the target, the rocket went into a shallow dive, at a distance of 50-60 meters from the rocket the warhead detached, which described an arc in the water and hit the ship to the side or bottom.

    During testing, a rocket with an inseparable inert warhead pierced the 230-mm side armor of the unfinished battleship "Stalingrad", forming an inlet in it with an area of ​​55 square. meters.
    When a rocket with an inseparable inert warhead hit the freeboard of the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser, the ship’s hull penetrated through with inlet and outlet openings of 15 and 8 sq. M, respectively.
    As a result of the inert warhead entering the surface of the Boiky destroyer, the inert warhead passed along the destroyer deck from the stern flag to the bow gun turret, destroying the stern gun turrets and superstructures, torpedo tubes, then half-tanked the half-tank and threw the bridge and mast into the water.

    One can imagine what a kinetic warhead weighing one ton will do with any dreadnought, having a strong body, carrying an explosive charge and dispersed to a speed of 1000 m / s in the final flight section. A similar warhead with a rocket accelerator can be delivered by a subsonic cruise missile and dropped onto a target from a dive after the “hill” maneuver. After breaking through the deck armor and detonating the explosive charge, even more highly kinetic warhead fragments will destroy the ship.

    In connection with this, the only defense of modern surface ships is an active missile defense system, and not passive armor, which has become an anachronism.
    1. Santa Fe 3 October 2015 08: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Operator
      At a distance of 750 meters from the target, the rocket went into a shallow dive, at a distance of 50-60 meters from the rocket the warhead detached, which described an arc in the water and hit the ship to the side or bottom.

      RATM-1400 system
      the work is curtailed due to the complete futility of the idea of ​​a "diving" warhead

      here is more detailed -
      http://topwar.ru/73634-pochemu-u-nas-net-torpedonoscev.html
      Quote: Operator
      During testing, a rocket with an inseparable inert warhead pierced the 230-mm side armor of the unfinished battleship "Stalingrad", forming an inlet in it with an area of ​​55 square. meters.

      Complete nonsense, reprinted from comment to comment
      Quote: Operator
      kinetic warhead weighing one ton and accelerated to a speed of 1000 m / s

      better imagine who can lift such a rocket
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Operator 3 October 2015 11: 42 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        You contradict yourself - see the selection of articles about disappeared armor on topwar.ru - since the middle of the last century, work on the construction of ships with belt / deck armor has been curtailed in all countries, and anti-ship missiles have bred like uncut dogs am

        As the practice of using KSSh showed, diving it with a kinetic warhead was not necessary at all - paired with an unmanned carrier aircraft, the warhead struck the citadel of battleships, pierced the cruisers right through and opened it like a tin can of destroyers.

        The KSSh cruise missile (and not RAT-1400, which was its progenitor) was removed from service due to the imperfection of technical implementation, and not the idea itself - at the moment, sea-based KRs have become the main type of anti-ship weapons.

        A supersonic kinetic warhead weighing 1,5 tons (1 ton - a robust hull with explosives, 500 kg - GOS and a rocket accelerator) can be lifted on board by many existing aircraft, from the combat training Yak-130 to the Su-34 fighter-bomber. Kinetic warheads can be delivered to the target area and aboard a Caliber-type subsonic cruise missile, provided it is scaled to 3 tons of take-off weight.

        The kinetic warhead is launched by aircraft / KR in the cabling mode at an altitude of 15-20 km and a distance of 100 km from the target.
  • Rumin11103 3 October 2015 20: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    So many specialists in shipbuilding, you wonder how much) I think you should look at the pros and cons of "returning" your armor. It would be as if a rocket or mine exploded under an armored ship, the damage would be similar to that of a ship that does not have one)
    1. Scraptor 3 October 2015 22: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As if - yes ... "Novorossiysk" was armored.

      since for example the diving warheads of the anti-ship missiles were secret for a long time, the public, when refusing the reservation, was usually blamed on tactical nuclear weapons (ships also do not use an anti-nuclear warrant for nothing).
  • bk0010 4 October 2015 01: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Already wrote, I will write again. NATO stupidly has no tasks for armored ships: booking (within reasonable limits) against Soviet missiles is useless, and they have no other comparable enemies, the quantitative ratio will allow crushing the mass without significant losses (with the exception of incidents at the beginning of the war, such as the "Varyag"). Perhaps it would make sense for Russia to build ships whose passive protection means (not a solid armored belt, but a stronghold or local reservation) were allocated about 25% of the displacement, but class 1 ships are not being built now, but are only being rebuilt, and what should be reserved for corvettes? Perhaps in Asia they are doing something in this direction (Korea, China), I simply do not have information.
  • Old_Python 4 October 2015 23: 05 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    My dear kalach, personally, my “verbal diarrhea” is due to the fact that I read the same article by Kaptsov. First with interest, then "clean parch", and now here is a yawn ...
    Kaptsov is an armored person, and this, apparently, is incurable. He came up with both a problem and a solution for himself, now he is pushing it with the tenacity of a rhino, juggling fragments of facts. But the introductory and boundary conditions of this problem, the tavarisch, it seems, did not bother at all.
    I would advise Oleg and everyone sincerely interested in reading textbooks first. Start with, say, ship theory. Statics, speed, handling, pitching. Then the basics of design, hull design and shipbuilding technology. The rest, such as structural mechanics, hydromechanics, and other furious horrors, can be quietly pushed, but I highly recommend it. At the same time, it shifts and cleans the brains.
    He studied armor and constructive defense at the Leningrad Order of the Lenin Shipbuilding Institute.
  • okroshka79 4 October 2015 23: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And in addition to the Old_Python commentary, it would be useful for all clever men led by O. Kaptsov to read the study guide Muru N.P. "Basics of the unsinkability of the ship."
    1. Scraptor 5 October 2015 00: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      With all this, textbooks can be lame ... Especially on submarines.
    2. Old_Python 5 October 2015 08: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, of course.
      The statics of the ship, in fact, is stability and unsinkability. hi
  • Old_Python 5 October 2015 08: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And one more terrible truth: the appearance of a warship is not determined in KB at all, yes. The designer is an important, but not the only link in the chain of creating a new BC. And, frankly, far from the first, and maybe not the second. Because besides him there is also the Military, and there is also the Industrialist, Scientist, Financier. The politician, after all, and this very pretzel, is perhaps the most important chief, since he is ruining the graters of everyone else.
    The most important document of any serious project is called quite frivolously - TK. Terms of Reference, AFTER approval of which the main design begins. This document is the field of fierce battles and trade, it is in this document that all the main - and even secondary - parameters of the future object are prescribed. TK was approved - everything, the most important thing has been done. It remains only to design and build, but it is clear WHAT.
    And without a clear TK, the result is HZ ...
  • Operator 5 October 2015 11: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Opinions of designers, military, industrialists, politicians, etc. etc. - this is all subjectivity.

    The main thing is objective reality, i.e. tactical environment where the product is to survive. Currently, this environment is characterized by the presence of such a weapon as guided missile weapons with an accuracy of meters, a range of hundreds of kilometers, hypersonic speed and armor penetration of 1000 and more than mm homogeneous steel. Kinetic warheads of ballistic missiles with space speeds of approach and armor penetration of tens of meters are approaching.

    Only SD can be protected from SD: there is no reception against scrap, apart from other scrap - that is, an active defense complex (see Arena, Trophy, Afganit, Iron Dome, C-400, RIM-161).
  • glavnykarapuz 6 November 2015 09: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: Zero Nil Seventh
    Maybe then it would turn out that the Americans, Europeans, Japanese and South Koreans are not all suckers

    Are you talking about the creators of Sheffield and Burke?))

    200 kg of improvised explosives from solarium with fertilizers (equivalent to warheads of one small-sized anti-ship missile) - a ship worth $ 1 billion in rubbish, 20% of the crew knocked out

    And now there’s no need to make excuses that in a real battle, Aegis will drop all-all missiles

    most likely, at the very beginning of the battle, you will have to withstand the first blow. And keep fighting like the great ancestors of Burke did

    And where is the data that BB from "solariums and fertilizers" ?? or do you believe "zhurnalizdam"?