On a combat ship, the price is all the same. Death.
New adventures of the super cruiser “Nevulzimimets” in the format of market relations. The main question on the agenda is “How much?”
War requires money, money, and more money. How much will it cost? At one time, the battleships were more expensive aircraft carriers. For an armored ship you need a huge number of armored steel, increased manufacturing complexity, engine of a different level. How many times does it cost more?
Comment by MaxWRX
And the reason is a huge and very expensive hippo, for which there are no corresponding tasks. The monster is the size of an aircraft carrier, and it will be armed as a destroyer - because the entire displacement reserve will devour the armor.
Comment by Aspeed
Dear colleagues, if you consider that a highly protected ship is several times more expensive than a usual unarmored destroyer, then you think so in vain. A number of obvious evidence inevitably indicates that the differences in the cost of construction will be within 10-15%.
At first glance, this seems impossible. Thin lining of the sides and high-grade armored steel with a thickness of a half ten centimeters. Household logic refuses to believe that the process of manufacturing and assembling armor plates can be the same in cost and labor costs of the process of manufacturing ordinary sheeting. The explanation of the paradox is a simple fact: the hull of a modern ship does not stand ANYTHING against the background of its high-tech “stuffing”.
This is the case when “the game is not worth the candle burned”. The destroyer corps is such an insignificant line of expenses that there’s nothing even to argue about. Even if it is made entirely of superalloys with alloying additives in the form of tungsten, the cost of its production will still be less than the cost of radars and weapons.
Let's see this with real examples.
200-meter landing “Mistral”. With helicopter lifts, a docking chamber, interior trim, a flagship command post, a Zerit-9 CMS (which has little to do with C-systems installed on destroyers, but still). Radar, communications, and other military systems. Advertised amenities, hospital and gym. Finnish diesel generators and Azipod steering wheels.
The contract with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation provided for the payment of 600 million euros for each of the two UDC. How much of this amount was the cost directly to manufacture the hull of a huge ship?
Even more paradoxical example:
The notorious supertanker “Sirius Star” (Daewoo, South Korea, 2008 year). The length of the 332 meter. Empty displacement ~ 50 th. Tons. Deadweight 318 KT The cost of building a marine leviathan was 150 million.
150 million - an unusually huge amount due to the outstanding dimensions of the “Sirius Star”. Conventional commercial tankers are much cheaper.
A series of tankers of mixed navigation (river-sea) of the project 19614 (“Red Sormovo”, Russia, 2002-2011). The length of 141 meter, deadweight - 5600 tons. Unit cost - 6 million.
From the point of view of war, six million is nothing. Three missiles "Caliber". Disappearingly small amount by the standards of the modern Navy.
As for a purely civilian tanker, in addition to the hull, this cost includes all electrical fittings, a fire extinguishing system, 12 isolated tanks with pumps and a heating system for viscous cargoes, navigational aids, residential equipment and, of course, a power plant. In order to prevent oil spills, the tanker Project 19614 has a double side and a double bottom.
It took no less metal than it did when building a warship of the ocean zone. In this sense, the tanker Ave. 19614 is a weight-size analogue of the American Aegis destroyer. At the same time, their cost inexplicably differs by almost three orders of magnitude!
In 2011, the Pentagon signed a contract for the construction of three missile destroyers equipped with the Aegis system (“John Finn”, “Ralph Johnson”, “Raphael Peralta”). For the construction of each ship, amounts from 679 to 783 million were allocated.
But do not rush to stigmatize American militarism for excessive greed and waste of funds. This amount (600-700 million) is indicated WITHOUT accounting for the Aegis system. In original: do not include The government-provided equipment such as the FY2011 / 12 per vessel.
Those. with a full set of radars, consoles and fire control devices installed, the cost of each of the destroyers will amount to the indicated $ 1,842 million, and in fact - even more expensive. There are 90 rocket launchers aboard the ship. Each may contain a Tomahawk strike ($ 2 million) or a Standard anti-aircraft missile ($ 4 million). In addition to them, each of the destroyers regularly carries two multipurpose MH-60 helicopters ($ 20 million each), a wide range of aviation weapons (very expensive) and unmanned underwater vehicles.
Taking into account the ammunition and additional equipment, the cost of a modern destroyer will boldly exceed 2 billion evergreen dollars.
It remains to find the answer to some questions.
Destroyer - this is the battleship of the twenty-first century!
The modern destroyer-class warship represents a floating treasure chest, the loss of which can cause irreparable damage to the budget.
The Yankees with their printing press can build “Berki” in series of 60 units, saving money through standardization and bulk purchase of equipment.
Fleets other countries have even harder: their piece products are truly “gold”. And the countries themselves, capable of building a ship for $ 2 billion, can now be counted on the fingers.
Destroyers - warships of the ocean zone with air defense / missile defense systems and universal weapons are currently being built by the United Kingdom, Japan, India and China. A pair of pieces is available in the French and Italian Navy.
This surprisingly repeats the situation that was observed in the early twentieth century. The modern destroyer (“Burke”, “Daring” or Indian “Kolkata”) is an analogue of the expensive “Dreadnought”, which everyone wanted, but only few could really allow.
Russia has the sixth largest fleet in the world (and we are in third place for a number of indicators). But the construction of the domestic destroyer is postponed indefinitely. The shipyard “Red Sormovo” can thresh hulls of any shape for 6 millions. Another question - what to put inside? Where are the domestic counterparts AMDR and “standard-6”? Where, even when choosing the type of GEM, universal disputes arise. However, it's not about that.
We come close to the burning question:
Why so expensive?
Because it is VERY difficult. A radar capable of discerning targets in Earth orbit. A rocket capable of intercepting another rocket (just like a bullet hit a bullet!) Or destroy an enemy satellite. A sonar of thousands of hydrophones capable of “groping” the submarines, firing torpedoes, and even simply finding mines in the water column, many miles from the ship. There are quite a few systems on the modern destroyer, the capabilities of which can only be explained using dark magic.
It turns out that the body (power set, plating, valves, internal bulkheads), together with the power plant of the four most powerful gas turbines (100 ths hp), fuel valves, propellers, electrical system with its power sources (three Allison gas turbine generators), compressors, power drives, elevators and conveyors, decoration and equipment for residential premises 300 people makes up only a third of the cost of a modern destroyer.
How much falls directly on the hull of the ship (the cost of purchasing thousands of tons of metal, manufacturing and installation of metal structures)? If we take into account the above examples with supertankers, then no more than 100 million dollars.
Only such an answer. A modern, unarmored “tin” in terms of hull design is in no way different from a civilian ship.
Increased resistance to hydrodynamic shocks (additional frames of the power set), five armor bulkheads one inch thick (“Burk” starting from subseries No. 2) and anti-nuclear protection (as tight as possible with a minimum of holes) are all small things that cannot or influence the situation.
What to argue, if there was a threefold difference from the beginning: 700 million (hull, power plant and all internal “stuffing”) - against 1,8 billion for a fully ready ship (without ammunition).
Even if tens of millions have settled in someone’s pocket (war is the most profitable business), this does not change the essence. The case is worth nothing compared to other items of expenditure. Feel free to add thousands more tons of steel structures and armor plates - this does not affect the cost of a modern warship.
For cost, what type of missile is installed in the CWP cells is much more important.
Playing on “pot odds”
The one who plays poker is familiar with the situation. It is necessary to deliver to the bank an amount that is incommensurable with that which is already “at stake”. And let your chances are small, but at the cost of minimal costs you can grab a huge sum.
In the case of a highly protected ship, it is no longer about ghostly luck. This is a real benefit: 150 mm Krupp armor will protect against all existing anti-ship weapons, MB, except for the most exotic ammunition (endangered “Granit”, etc.). The guarantee is the experience of sea battles. Where hard-bodied discs could not cope at two speeds of sound, subsonic plastic “Harpoons” have nothing to catch.
Even when meeting with the exotic three-winged Onyx / Caliber, the presence of armor plates would prevent serious damage to the ship from the wreckage of the downed missile (a real precedent is a fire on the Entrym frigate, after falling into the superstructure of the downed target, 1983).
Understanding (and correctly understanding) that conventional attack patterns would not work, the participants in the discussion suggested original ways of “reprisal”. For example, to undermine a cluster munition above a ship, which at one time mutilate all detection means, the deck and the Superstructure “Invincible”.
Fine, no one paid attention that delivery of ammunition to the specified point (at a height of a couple of tens of meters OVER the ship) would require some maneuvers. What is great will increase the vulnerability of ammunition (compared to low-flying anti-ship missiles) and give extra seconds to air defense calculations. After all, the creators of the “Invincible” are not going to abandon the “Dirks”, “Goalkeepers” and other active defenses.
Increase the mass of missile warheads, follow them in a tandem pattern, pervert as you wish. In total there will be one - the growth of the RCC mass and dimensions, coupled with a reduction in the number of their possible carriers. What will again be in the hands of the ship's air defense system.
Instead of an epilogue
An indirect confirmation of all these theses is the situation of the first half of the 20th century, when the developed powers massively built "monsters" without encountering difficulties with the treatment of thick armor plates. What are the 330-mm “walls of the super dreadnoughts Queen Elizabeth” (1915) worth! Without automatic plasma cutting, 3D printers and CNC machines.
That is because the magicians were shipbuilders in the past century. Probably, their secrets are lost forever, as well as the recipe for the gnome steel.
Comment by kalach
During World War II, the Americans built the 12 LKR and LK, not counting the 20 heavy cruisers of the Baltimore and Co. family, as well as the 27 “light” cruise ships of the “Cleveland” type. The thickness of the latter’s armor plates reached 127 mm, while the “De Moines” armor protection (the most sophisticated TKR) consisted of 150 mm belts and 90 mm decks.
Almost 60 supercars. Modern unarmored destroyers, with their mass character, rest.
When building the “Invincible” you can use the best materials and technologies of both eras. Krupp armored steel with a cemented outer layer, ceramics, Kevlar, a unique “perforated armor” (which should not be seen as a set of holes, but as a system of sharp solid edges that tear up ammunition and dissipate its energy). Etc. Etc.
The thickness of armor plates: against modern ammunition, six inches is enough (of course, the reservation scheme is differential). Pay special attention to the system of isolated compartments and internal splinter bulkheads: breaking through the first layer does not mean that the ship is out of order.
And, of course, the appearance and layout of the “Invincibles” will not be similar to any of the existing ships or cruisers of the past.
What is the mass of armor? According to the roughest estimates (15% of the standard displacement, as on the heaviest TKR of the Second World War period) ~ 2 thousand tons for the ship, similar in capabilities and composition of armament to the destroyer “Arly Burk”.
How to ensure the buoyancy of this “iron”? Obviously, additional volume of the case. There are no international tonnage restrictions in our time. And the cost of the steel structures themselves is vanishingly small against the background of other expenditure items (which was discussed in the main part of the article). The power plant will remain unchanged - the speed of a ship correlates poorly with the increase in displacement, the insinuations in the 3 node do not matter.
However, all this particular.
The main idea is that the booking installation costs pennies (against the background of the same ammunition), while providing the ship with unique opportunities. Combat stability, survivability and immunity to conventional means of air attack, unprecedented for modern Ajgis.