Military Review

How much does an armored cruiser cost?

192



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.



How much does an armored cruiser cost?




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.

Great numbers!

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.
And yet!

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.
Author:
192 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 November 2015 07: 00
    +7
    He went through it, looked at the pictures, ran his eyes ... Noticing familiar words about the free volumes of the case, armor, etc., you can immediately see who wrote ... negative Nothing new ... And the persistence in the appearance of such articles makes one think of health problems in the head area.
    Although, for youngsters to read such nonsense will be interesting. Especially ecstasy will fall from the last paragraph with conclusions! laughing
    Once again I will advise you, Mr. Kaptsov, to apply to the Shipbuilding Design Bureau, they will explain to you why the ships today are such and not the ones you want in your dreams wink
    And so ... Dave Majumdar of the local spill.
    PERSONALLY MY OPINION, that would not have thought in any sort of attacks on a person and stuff hi
    1. common man
      common man 16 November 2015 07: 37
      28
      Quote: Rurikovich
      You, Mr. Kaptsov, turn to the Shipbuilding Design Bureau, they will explain to you why the ships today are such and not the ones you want in your dreams

      And you yourself little to explain? At least try to argue your point of view. And then an argument, like
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Although, for youngsters to read such nonsense will be interesting. Especially ecstasy will fall from the last paragraph with conclusions!

      somehow it doesn’t work.
      The main arguments of opponents of the reservation:
      1. "Anti-ship missiles of the" Granite "type, all the armor does not care." And there are many carriers with this type of anti-ship missile in the world? ;
      2. "Let's make diving warheads";
      3. "We will make" smart "warheads that will hit the unprotected parts of the ship";
      All this is good, but all this still needs to be done, and placed somewhere, that is, to build the fleet again
      4. "Let's spread all the radars". The main crew is intact and the ship is under way.
      Oleg’s articles, judging by the number of comments, cause a lively discussion, and in the dispute, as you know, truth is born.
      PS Why on tanks, in spite of all AZ, DZ, and other ZZ do not refuse armor?
      1. Santa Fe
        16 November 2015 07: 53
        +6
        Quote: man in the street
        which will hit unprotected parts of the ship;

        Of course, in the unprotected parts of the ship, outside the citadel, there is nothing important
        you can tear off the extremity to hell, the cruiser will return on its own, like "Pittsburgh"
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 16 November 2015 08: 52
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Of course, in the unprotected parts of the ship, outside the citadel, there is nothing important
          you can tear off the extremity to hell, the cruiser will return on its own, like "Pittsburgh"

          And is a ship with a torn tip capable of continuing to carry out a combat mission, or is it leaving the battle for an indefinite period?
          1. Santa Fe
            16 November 2015 09: 02
            +4
            Quote: Alex_59
            And is a ship with a torn tip capable of continuing to carry out a combat mission, or is it leaving the battle for an indefinite period?

            Of course, maybe he still has all the weapons and means of detection
            the electricity supply is normal, the crew is alive and well, there is no threat of flooding
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 16 November 2015 09: 13
              12
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Of course, maybe he still has all the weapons and means of detection
              the electricity supply is normal, the crew is alive and well, there is no threat of flooding

              I look forward to examples when a ship with a torn tip continued to actively participate in the operation. Those. not just falling afloat and shooting back from trying to finish him off the enemy forces, but continued active actions. Active - this means looking for new opponents on the battlefield, getting close to them, and sought to destroy them.
              1. Santa Fe
                16 November 2015 09: 39
                +2
                Quote: Alex_59
                I look forward to examples when a ship with a torn tip continued to actively participate in the operation.

                Well, wait further

                And damaged ships, as a rule, sought to leave the database area. In the era of artillery duels, speed loss was a problem. Now there is no such problem in principle
                Quote: Alex_59
                looking for new opponents on the battlefield, getting close to them

                In the age of rocket weapons? can fly into space instead of the SM-3 missile
                Quote: Alex_59
                and sought to destroy them.

                Do you think he will not be able to release "calibers" without a nasal tip?))
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 16 November 2015 09: 56
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  And damaged ships, as a rule, sought to leave the database area.

                  As required. wink
                  1. Santa Fe
                    16 November 2015 10: 06
                    +4
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    As required.

                    What have you proved?

                    What loss of tip led to a decrease in speed? Without which it is impossible to lead art. duel

                    Do modern ships often scorch cannons at each other?
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 16 November 2015 10: 16
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      What have you proved?
                      The fact that you are adjusting reality to your own errors.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        16 November 2015 10: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        The fact that you are adjusting reality to your own errors.

                        And one more thing to add: oooh

                        because you have nothing to say on the topic
                      2. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 16 November 2015 10: 51
                        +3
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        because you have nothing to say on the topic

                        I'll go curl up and cry. smile
                        There is too much to say on the subject. Does not interfere with comments. Apparently it’s necessary to write an article.
                      3. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 16 November 2015 19: 35
                        +6
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        There is too much to say on the subject.

                        Which is better - the ship could not complete the task and drowned, and its crew died heroically, or if the ship could not complete the task, but was able to leave the combat zone and return to the base, together with a large / significant part of its crew?
                      4. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 16 November 2015 21: 35
                        +1
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Which is better - the ship could not complete the task and drowned, and its crew died heroically, or if the ship could not complete the task, but was able to leave the combat zone and return to the base, together with a large / significant part of its crew?

                        The question is rhetorical, but requires clarification. I am not a general, but I know that in military art there is a principle of concentration of efforts and massiveness. If a ship leaves the battle - regardless of whether it remained afloat or not - it no longer affects the course of the battle. And this is exactly what the enemy needs - the erosion of attacking forces. It is not necessary to drown - the main thing is not to let it act. And this is precisely what is dangerous for their own people - this combat unit is needed here and now, and not sometime later, after repair, when it may be too late. Imagine that this one with his nose torn off was supposed to support the Marines' artillery fire in a decisive attack somewhere on Guadalcanal. But his nose was torn off and he did not complete the task. As a result, the marines failed the attack, the Japanese launched a counterattack, threw the marines into the sea, etc. The whole operation failed, hundreds of soldiers died - but our lucky one, even with his nose torn off, is still alive. What's the use?
                      5. Santa Fe
                        16 November 2015 22: 20
                        +3
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        If the ship left the battle

                        The combat effectiveness is not impaired, as long as buoyancy, energy supply and weapons are maintained.

                        70 years ago, in the age of artillery duels, a move was critical. Now this requirement is outdated
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Imagine that this one with his nose torn off was supposed to support the Marines artillery fire in a decisive attack somewhere on Guadalcanal.

                        In this situation, he will complete the task at 100%
                        A torn nose does not affect the ability to shoot cannons
                      6. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 17 November 2015 06: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        70 years ago, in the age of artillery duels, a move was critical. Now this requirement is outdated

                        Moreover, then I don’t understand why in the matter of booking modern ships you have constant references to ships of 70 years ago.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The combat effectiveness is not impaired, as long as buoyancy, energy supply and weapons are maintained.
                        I understand the concept of "combat capability" - literally as the ability to fight. A ship with a torn off nose almost completely loses its combat effectiveness, although undoubtedly it cannot be considered destroyed.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        In this situation, he will complete the task on 100%. A torn nose does not affect the ability to shoot cannons.
                        So why pretend? You well understand that on 100% he will not perform such a task. A torn nose does not affect artillery, that's for sure. But this is not a computer game, who will let him calmly engage in artillery preparation while remaining motionless (or sedentary)? If it were so simple, you would have towed a barge with field army cannons, anchored, shot, towed back to the port. Why bother fleet at all if you can get by with a tugboat and a barge?
                      7. Santa Fe
                        17 November 2015 07: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        why in the matter of booking modern ships you have constant references to ships of 70 years ago.

                        the projection of their combat stamina on a modern fleet

                        use case: type of ammunition, place of contact, list of damage caused
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        A ship with a severed nose almost completely loses combat capability

                        Forget about the torn nose, they brought it as an example of max. damage to an unprotected tip. Although in this case, Pittsburgh and N. Orleans escaped

                        Pittsburgh generally peppy, committed transoceanic transition
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        who will let him calmly engage in artillery preparation while remaining motionless (or sedentary)?

                        And who will not?

                        before arguing about anything, read at least Wospite. what happened to him and in what condition he fought
                      8. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 17 November 2015 07: 56
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        before arguing about something, read at least about Wospite

                        Well duck tell, just smart. I don’t know everything in the world, I’m far from you.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Forget about your torn nose
                        Good good. I did not start about torn noses and priests. smile
                      9. Santa Fe
                        17 November 2015 08: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        I don’t know everything in the world, I’m far from you.

                        Google, he will judge everyone

                        That same month, the British Worspite came under attack from guided bombs. The veteran of both world wars clearly did not expect such a gift of fate. The bomb pierced the battleship through and through, making an 6-meter hole in its bottom through which 5000 tons of sea water came. The close rupture of another “Fritz” damaged the anti-torpedo defense of the battleship, the third bomb detonated at a distance without causing Warspite harm. Despite the heavy injuries, the losses among the Worspite crew were small: only 9 dead and 14 wounded.

                        The lost battleship was evacuated to Malta, from where he was transferred to England. Six months later, “Worspayt” was returned to combat capability. 6 June 1944, the ship first opened fire on the German fortifications in Normandy.

                        13 June 1944 years in the English Channel at Harwich the battleship was blown up by a mine. Coming out of repair at the beginning of August 1944, the battleship had only three of the four operating screws - they did not rebuild the fourth shaft, the speed dropped to 15 nodes.

                        On August 25, HMS Warspite attacked coastal batteries near Brest. In early September, he moved to the Le Havre region, where he launched a series of attacks on ground targets, and at the end of the month, he bombarded the German forces at the mouth of the Scheldt near Antwerp. On November 1, he launched a series of attacks on targets on the island of Valeeheren. This was the last battle operation of the battleship.
                      10. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 17 November 2015 09: 17
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The lost battleship was evacuated to Malta
                        Well, what did I say?
                        We communicate with you as in different languages, or you have problems with understanding. I wrote above that a ship that has lost its combat effectiveness (ability to fight) is useless in battle, i.e. where it is needed like air here and now. The fact that it was then repaired - I do not argue with that, it's wonderful. But the main goal is to withstand and not lose combat effectiveness on the spot. Or did the Worpsite crew ask the combatants not to disperse? Right now, we will drive you to repair and will return, you will freeze here for now, and when we return we will show you whoa!
                      11. Santa Fe
                        17 November 2015 09: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        I wrote above that out of combat (ability to fight) ship useless in battle,

                        Someone claimed the opposite?
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        But this is not a computer game, who will let him calmly engage in artillery preparation while remaining motionless (or sedentary)?

                        Being a sedentary disabled person, "Worspeight" was engaged in artillery preparation for several months
                      12. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 17 November 2015 10: 05
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Being a sedentary disabled person, "Worspeight" was engaged in artillery preparation for several months

                        Based on the assumption that the enemy is always a mug and will passively wait for him to be covered with civilian suitcases, booking is all the more unnecessary.
                      13. S-kerrigan
                        S-kerrigan 18 November 2015 06: 08
                        +1
                        Alex, they are stubbornly trying to convey to you the essence of the fact that the battleship will survive and return to service after repair. And a modern ship will not only not survive, but already trained personnel will take it to the next world. And the second scenario is undeniably worse.
                      14. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 18 November 2015 15: 20
                        +1
                        Quote: S-Kerrigan
                        Alex, they are stubbornly trying to convey to you the essence of the fact that the battleship will survive and return to service after repair. And a modern ship will not only not survive, but already trained personnel will take it to the next world. And the second scenario is undeniably worse.

                        The analogy with the battleship is not appropriate. The place of the battleship as the main striking force of the fleet today is occupied by aircraft carriers. Moreover, the actions of the LC and AB, both then and now, provide numerous unarmored or lightly armored escort forces - destroyers and cruisers. During WWII, for some reason, no one demanded that the destroyers, frigates and light cruisers be protected with bulletproof armor, and they somehow managed.
                        And then Oleg diligently gives only those examples that fit harmoniously into his theory. He does not recall the LinCR Hood or the battleship Ripals, which died in a matter of minutes despite the armor. Those. it's not just the armor.
                      15. Santa Fe
                        19 November 2015 00: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        He does not recall the LinCR Hood or the battleship Ripals, which died in a matter of minutes despite the armor. Those. it's not just the armor.

                        Do not want to recall (offhand) "Maryland", "Littorio", "Tennessee" (the case in Pearl Harbor), details of the incident with "Prince Eugen" in Brest. And also the incredible return of Seydlitz and the rapid death of the lightly armored British LKR at Jutland. + fantastic resistance of "Nagato" at at. Bikini

                        Maybe it's all about probability?
                        The presence of armor greatly increases the chances
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        LinCR "Hood"

                        LKR of the times of the WWI could not stand the hit of 380 mm by a German overalls, what is surprising? he did not burn from an unexploded rocket

                        And in general, are there many such examples when they died from the first hit? The answer is no. "Hood", pure chance / luck
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        or the battleship "Repals"

                        Torpedo bombers.
                        their appearance is currently impossible

                        - article on VO "Why we don't have torpedo bombers"
    2. seos
      seos 18 November 2015 20: 05
      0
      The hit of a cruise missile ship in addition to damage usually causes a fire, and putting out a fire in battle is a big problem.
  2. Dart2027
    Dart2027 17 November 2015 19: 28
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    I'm not a general, but I know

    I am also not a general, but I know that to sacrifice people guided by military necessity and to argue that once the ship is out of order, let it sink and spit.
    Quote: Alex_59
    The whole operation failed, hundreds of soldiers died - but our lucky one, even with his nose torn off, is still alive. What's the use?

    But the sense that several hundred sailors still survived. Well, there is a good chance that the ship can be repaired, and this is easier than building from scratch.
  3. Alex_59
    Alex_59 18 November 2015 14: 42
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    I am also not a general, but I know that to sacrifice people guided by military necessity and to argue that once the ship is out of order, let it sink and spit.

    I did not say that let him drown and spit. I said that armor is not the best way to ensure that it does not drown in modern conditions.
  4. Dart2027
    Dart2027 18 November 2015 19: 12
    +2
    Quote: Alex_59
    that armor is not the best way

    Not the best. But capable of increasing the chances of survival, which is what is required of her.
  5. Santa Fe
    19 November 2015 00: 19
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    that armor is not the best way to ensure that it does not drown in modern conditions.

    What else can help localize the damage or even prevent their appearance, in addition to armor. Moreover, this method is also the cheapest

    active means of defense? so they are worthless - say Stark, Sheffield and Chancellorrsville, along with the frigate "Entrim", which almost burned out from the debris of a downed rocket
  6. Alex_59
    Alex_59 19 November 2015 16: 03
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What else can help localize the damage or even prevent their appearance, in addition to armor. Moreover, this method is also the cheapest

    I do not argue (except for "prevent" - there is no way). But not anti-missile armor, but anti-fragmentation + minimum AMG - and all this is not at the expense of other combat capabilities.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    so they are worthless - they say Stark
    What are the active defenses on Stark? 76-mm cannon with scanty angles? Plus, do not forget that he’s a frigate and you’re sewing, not the armor on such a little ship, and that he did not expect an attack from an allied aircraft (as Saudi AWACS told him).
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Sheffield

    Sloppiness with disabling RL funds in a space session. communications + the active means themselves on Sheffield frankly we will say so-so, as well as on the whole fleet of Englishmen of that period.
    Your beloved Cole is also an example of enchanting gossip of the commander who did not organize an elementary PDO and monitor the situation.
  7. Santa Fe
    19 November 2015 23: 23
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    I do not argue

    arguing with the obvious for two months
    Quote: Alex_59
    and all this without prejudice to other combat capabilities.

    What side armor to the detriment of
    one good, at very miserable costs
    Quote: Alex_59
    What are the active defenses on Stark?

    six-barreled "Falanx" with radar guidance
    MK.36 SBROC dipole shooting system
    electronic countermeasure system SLQ-32

    not to mention the SAM "Standard"
    Quote: Alex_59
    76-mm cannon with scanty angles?

    RCC Exoset is also not the top of perfection))
    Quote: Alex_59
    he did not expect an attack from an allied plane

    Not expected))
    And what did he expect, patrolling in the tanker war zone, where everyone beat everyone indiscriminately?
    Quote: Alex_59
    Your favorite cole

    wow, I remembered about Cole, but tactfully kept silent about "Entrim" and "Chancellorsville")))

    unsuccessful examples, right?
  8. Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 November 2015 06: 58
    -1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    six-barreled "Falanx" with radar guidance

    The rocket was not in the shooting sector. I did not manage to bring the target to the desired angle. Is Wikipedia difficult to open?
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    And what did he expect, patrolling in the tanker war zone, where everyone beat everyone indiscriminately?

    Here! This is the key point. If the commander is gouging - where does the armor? And once again I repeat - there can be no serious armor on such a ship, this is a frigate. And Sheffield, too, is not far from him in size and / and. In the current classification, he is also more likely a frigate than a destroyer.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    unsuccessful examples, right?
    No, I don’t remember everything by heart. I read at leisure what’s up there with your Entrim and Chancellorsville - then I can say something.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    arguing with the obvious for two months

    I argue not with ship armor, but with yours. These are fundamentally different things. Although it is useless to argue with your armor, this is so for me, a warm-up for the mind at your leisure. smile
  9. Santa Fe
    20 November 2015 08: 26
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    The rocket was not in the shooting sector.

    Hah, and whose problems are these?
    active defense systems failed the task

    ps / where were the systems for shooting dipoles and electronic warfare?
    or were they transported as ballast?
    Quote: Alex_59
    Is Wikipedia difficult to open?

    is it not written there that, long before the attack, all frigate systems were put on alert No. 3 (full combat readiness)
    Quote: Alex_59
    If the commander is gouging - where does the armor?

    What a gouge he is. He acted according to the instructions, put the ship on alert. He could not shoot down the Mirage, until the very end it was not clear who it was and what he wanted.

    Armor works great in such cases. Even if the situation has changed, and something went wrong - you can rely on it!
  10. Alex_59
    Alex_59 20 November 2015 12: 35
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Hah, and whose problems are these?
    active defense systems failed the task

    Failed the task:
    1. Designers The firing angles must be made maximum.
    2. Commander. What kind of plane? Ours, not ours, but play it safe and bring the target into the shelling sector. Put interference, maneuver hiding behind the dipoles.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    that all frigate systems were brought to readiness No. 3 long before the attack

    But the modest commander was shy after such a decisive start to use these means at the end of the play. Well done, what.

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Armor works great in such cases.

    What, we will reserve any boat that grazes bearded Papuans? The Soviet minesweepers and the IPC in the Dakhlak archipelago somehow managed without armor and without losses at the end of the 80's. Or do you send your battleship Somali pirates send? Laugh.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    ps / where were the systems for shooting dipoles and electronic warfare?
    or were they transported as ballast?

    So I'm talking about that. Commander - failed to repel the attack. These are his problems, not the problems of electronic warfare.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    He could not shoot down the Mirage

    How touching. When was it that the Americans "could not" shoot someone down? He didn't "Couldn't." He missed the Mirage attack, that's all.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    there until the very end it was unclear who this is and what he wants

    From the territory of Iraq took off - who he was clear from the very beginning, the Saudi told him everything. What he wants - after two requests to indicate his intentions, it was already clear what he wants in the database area where ships were regularly drowned with the help of aviation.
  11. Santa Fe
    20 November 2015 22: 20
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    The firing angles must be made maximum.

    at aegis they are maximum, 360 hail. in azimuth
    greatly helped Chancellorsville?

    Quote: Alex_59
    Put interference, maneuver hiding behind the dipoles.

    But didn’t you set it? Not enough time ...

    that's the whole price of "active remedies"
    Quote: Alex_59
    and be safe and bring the target into the firing sector

    Do not remind the circulation radius of the 4000-ton frigate
    and at the same time the flight speed of the RCC "Exocet"
    Quote: Alex_59
    then, will we reserve any boat that grazes bearded Papuans?

    Saddam was not a bearded Papuan
    he had the latest Mirage F-1 with missiles
    Quote: Alex_59
    How touching. When was it that the Americans "could not" shoot someone down? He didn't "Couldn't." He missed the Mirage attack, that's all.

    Read anything about tanker war
    And the details of the frigate incident

    A mirage of 40 circled minutes over an American ship - obviously, the pilot also did not know what to do
    Quote: Alex_59
    From the territory of Iraq took off - who he was clear from the very beginning

    Iraq was an ally of the United States
  • Down House
    Down House 16 November 2015 14: 08
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    And damaged ships, as a rule, sought to leave the database area.

    Well, what is the size of the modern DB zone, when missiles can "fire" thousands of kilometers?
    1. Santa Fe
      16 November 2015 22: 23
      +2
      Quote: Down House
      Well, what is the size of the modern database zone,

      depends on the size of the database

      In the days of the Falkland War, the British introduced the 200 mile zone of the database around the disputed islands
      Quote: Down House
      when can rockets "fire" thousands of kilometers?

      On a moving sea target with unknown coordinates
      1. Down House
        Down House 17 November 2015 23: 01
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        depends on the size of the database

        And not from the range of missiles, in the event of a global war?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        On a moving sea target with unknown coordinates

        And what are the satellites for?
  • Kars
    Kars 16 November 2015 09: 57
    14
    Quote: Alex_59
    I look forward to examples when a ship with a torn tip continued to actively participate in the operation

    We’ll have to wait a long time, we’ll talk about modern missile ships, but, unfortunately, they burn from a missile that didn’t explode.

    Yes, and the missile ship, take note of the closer rapprochement is not particularly necessary.
  • biznaw
    biznaw 16 November 2015 16: 25
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Of course, maybe he still has all the weapons and means of detection
    the electricity supply is normal, the crew is alive and well, there is no threat of flooding

    I look forward to examples when a ship with a torn tip continued to actively participate in the operation. Those. not just falling afloat and shooting back from trying to finish him off the enemy forces, but continued active actions. Active - this means looking for new opponents on the battlefield, getting close to them, and sought to destroy them.


    Hmm In the Russo - Japanese War, the cruiser Varyag continued active fighting despite numerous hits ... Or Tsushima Or WWII, naval battles of the Germans and the British, the Germans broke through the English fleet despite the hurricane fire of the superior enemy.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 16 November 2015 22: 09
      +3
      Quote: biznaw
      Hmm In the Russo - Japanese War, the cruiser Varyag continued active hostilities despite numerous hits ...

      Well, not with his nose torn off, right? This is again not in favor of advanced booking. An artillery ship can retain the ability to fight while at least one weapon with a servant is alive. Even without centralized control - but fire is possible. With rocket ships, that won't work. If the radar or intra-ship communications are out of order, you cannot shoot missiles manually and by eye. Although it may be all the ammunition cellars are intact. The point in this situation is to hide the power plant under the shell? The armor of modern ships is their missiles. They prevent problems. While the armor only reduces the severity of the consequences. This does not mean that booking is bad - it is necessary, but its role is deeply secondary. And there is no sense in "anti-missile" solid armor, there is only sense in anti-splinter armor.
      1. Santa Fe
        16 November 2015 22: 30
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        Well, not with your nose torn off, right?

        What did you like so much torn nose))

        Complete loss of extremity (Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Savannah) - extreme cases involving critical damage to the aforementioned ships. And they are not called ordinary art. duel
        Quote: Alex_59
        With rocket ships it will not work like that. If the radar or the shipboard communications are out of order, you can’t shoot missiles manually and by eye.

        The presence or absence of a radar does not in any way affect the ability to launch "Calibers". Or anti-submarine rocket torpedoes. Or shooting from the main battery for the gorizornt

        "intra-ship communications" - as long as there is power supply and the launcher is not damaged, missiles pose a threat to the enemy. The destruction of the CIC, hidden in the depths of the hull, behind a dozen echelons of active and constructive protection - if the fire and explosion products even got there, it means that the ship is destroyed.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 17 November 2015 06: 52
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The presence or absence of a radar does not in any way affect the ability to launch "Calibers". Or anti-submarine rocket torpedoes.

          I agree. But a modern rocket ship is not being created for the sake of Caliber and PLUR alone. If our ship is soaked so that the radar is out of order, it means that there is no time for the "Caliber" at this second. Until recently, the main tasks of ships of the frigate-destroyer-cruiser classes were air defense, anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense. Suffice it to look at the composition of the weapons of our Slava or a typical BK "Burka". PLO is still God bless him, but anti-aircraft missile defense and air defense without radar control center - nothing. No control center - they will finish it off at any moment.
          1. Santa Fe
            17 November 2015 07: 46
            -2
            Quote: Alex_59
            But after all, a modern rocket ship is not being created for the sake of Caliber and PLUR alone.

            there is still RCC. Radars are also not needed to launch them.

            all weapons, with the exception of air defense, use data from an external command
            however, even air defense / missile defense has now been taught to work according to external data (zur with ARGSN)
            Quote: Alex_59
            FFP and anti-aircraft defense without a radar station - nothing. No TSU - will be finished at any time.

            Do you seriously believe that someone will send him alone to the enemy shore
          2. Alex_59
            Alex_59 17 November 2015 08: 10
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            there is still RCC. Radars are also not needed to launch them.

            They don’t know cousin with Nikolsky. Entire books were scribbled on the problems of the command center for operational-tactical anti-ship missiles. Oleg Kaptsov has already solved the problem. smile
            Well, you can, of course, and without TSU. You can build a ship without radar at all. Yes, there are already such ships - a submarine is called. No problem.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            however, even air defense / missile defense has now been taught to work according to external data (zur with ARGSN)
            It is interesting how the pre-launch info on the approximate direction of the target’s location, if it’s beyond the radio horizon, comes from the SAM with the AGSN. I know - balloons with helicopters. Well, yes, this is possible until the balloon blew away in Pennsylvania on October 28, and until the helicopter was shot down. You can, you can. Nobody argues that it is possible.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Do you seriously believe that someone will send him alone to the enemy shore

            Of course not. It will be covered by an aircraft carrier that is unnecessary in your theory. smile
          3. Santa Fe
            17 November 2015 08: 18
            -1
            Quote: Alex_59
            Entire books scribbled on the problems of the Central Administration for operational-tactical anti-ship missiles

            Do they say that ship's radar sees targets beyond the horizon?

            Any over-the-horizon weapons, including RCC, induced by external data
            Quote: Alex_59
            where does the pre-launch info on the approximate direction of finding the target from the missiles with AGSN,

            The MH-60R helicopter with the AN / APS-147 radar - it has two tasks: 1. look for periscopes and retractable submarine devices. If necessary - it can be used to detect low-flying anti-ship missiles; data transfer - standard, NATO Link16 and higher

            any AWACS

            F-35 - they plan to include them in the missile defense system

            another KUG ship
            Quote: Alex_59
            It will be covered by an aircraft carrier that is unnecessary in your theory.

            It will be covered by planes from Cyganella)))
          4. Alex_59
            Alex_59 17 November 2015 09: 34
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Do they say that ship's radar sees targets beyond the horizon?
            They say that the combat stability of external sources of command and control is a very big problem, because as soon as your helicopter sees the target, the target sees it too. But the goal does not want to die, and if it has the means, it will work out the helicopter with pleasure. And then how lucky. Therefore, no one wants to rely solely on balloons with helicopters, and the radars on the tops of the masts remain, as do the antennas of electronic warfare systems (in terms of reconnaissance of radiation sources). And you want to shove them under the armor, turning the warship into an immersible armored submarine. With such a concept, it’s better to immediately build some submarines, they have stronger sonar acoustics and the ability to maneuver in three dimensions. Again, they easily sink aircraft carriers - beauty, right? smile
  • o4ki
    o4ki 18 November 2015 10: 18
    0
    Directly did not break off to register to minus. But here, unfortunately, it is impossible to minus without leaving 10 comments. But I remember you .... By the head of cabbage, for stupidity. Do not answer anything.
  • Kars
    Kars 16 November 2015 09: 48
    13
    Here, by the way, there is one more factor - let’s say the destroyer was hit by a Granit volley, its air defense system was able to intercept 100%, but the last one was already intercepted by the near air defense system = the same Goalkeeper, or Chestnut, wouldn't it be insulting if the ship ignites from the fragments of a downed rocket?
    1. Santa Fe
      16 November 2015 10: 05
      +2
      Wow, I haven’t seen you for a long time
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 November 2015 11: 10
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Wow, I haven’t seen you for a long time

        here yes. quite a while ago I did not go into the themes of armor on modern boxes.
        1. biznaw
          biznaw 16 November 2015 16: 29
          +4
          Quote: Kars
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Wow, I haven’t seen you for a long time



          Pancake. Indeed, they have not seen for a long time ... And the lieutenant again. The NKVD pressed, demoted? Well, at least alive. Glad to see!
  • Operator
    Operator 16 November 2015 23: 15
    0
    Ship superstructures with radar antennas and equipment are unprotected parts.
    Pike-class cruise missiles have been able to destroy superstructures to the core, from stern to bow, for six decades.
    Without radars, the ships in the AUG are transformed into cargo ships, despite any thickness of the armor of the side and deck. After that the aircraft carrier can be taken with "bare hands".
    Therefore, ships must be protected as a whole, and not just the sides and deck. This can only be achieved with the help of a complex of active defense - a missile defense system.
    Armor is an anachronism.
  • insafufa
    insafufa 17 November 2015 13: 15
    +1
    http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201511170812-415x.htm

    I suggest everyone to look at this post, and most importantly look at the name of the expert

    And I'm waiting for a comment from Oleg wink
  • Nikita Dmitriev
    Nikita Dmitriev 16 November 2015 10: 18
    35
    Then asked the opinion of the shipbuilders?
    I work at the Baltic Shipyard as a design engineer for 2cat. Before that, I worked at Almaz Central Design Bureau. I speak out.

    Now, no matter what, the main thing in warships is the ratio of cost to efficiency.

    ALL Shipbuilders try, without losing combat potential, to reduce the displacement of the ship, and not increase it. This is due to the fact that the power of the engines, and accordingly the cost, with an increase in displacement increases exponentially. If you certainly want to maintain the speed of the warship.)))

    Those. adding armor will increase not only the cost of the hull, but also
    cost:
    -engines
    -mechanical systems (by the way, reinforcement ДУ200 times in 10 more expensive than ДУ100 fittings)
    -fuel (fuel consumption will be greater and, accordingly, one trip will cost more)
    screw
    -shafts
    gearboxes
    All this is very expensive equipment.
    To protect against anti-ship missiles, so that this makes at least some sense, the reservation should be more than 100mm, since thinner armor simply cannot withstand the explosion of 300kg of the sea mixture, so, according to my estimates, the minimum displacement of any corvette will be 3-4Kt, with 2Kt normal modern without reservation.

    Further on the survivability of the battleships in a modern design.
    Most likely, anti-ship missiles will really lose in efficiency and will not pierce the side. But with the appearance of such ships, nothing puts into the RCC bios a program for entering this type of ships, for example, from above making a hill before defeat. It will not be comparable in value with the construction of a series of armadillos.

    And at the expense of tanks:
    In tanks, they do not refuse armor because they are small, relative to the ship))), they are cheap (1-5md), ATGMs as the main means of defeating an infantry tank are expensive (100-200 thousandd), and so they you need to use this tank first in the bushes, being in the zone of direct defeat, then kneel down and shoot with a flash giving out your location, while it’s not a fact that you can knock out the tank after breaking through all its defenses. And then the fun part. Manage not to die under the fire of infantry or tanks nearby, as you become the number one target. ATGMs have always been an auxiliary weapon, and are needed so that the infantry does not end up with a bare ass in front of the tank. Therefore, the main means of defeating the tank is a tank gun, and therefore tanks wear armor. At sea, a different landscape and a different principle of battle and therefore there is no longer armor)))
    1. Santa Fe
      16 November 2015 10: 31
      -5
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      This is due to the fact that the power of the engines, and accordingly the cost, with an increase in displacement increases exponentially

      Why do Burke (9000 tons) and Zamvolta (15000 tons) power plants have the same power

      Dear 2 category engineer, I made a mistake:
      there is no exponential dependence of power on displacement
      there is only a cubic dependence of the power of a power plant on speed:
      for example, to increase the speed by 1,5 times, you will have to increase the power by 3,3 times
      this has nothing to do with displacement, they generally correlate weakly. It is easy to see this in any example (TKR of the Second World War, 17 thousand full / and, 130 thousand hp, 33 knots. Modern destroyer "31-knot Berk" - 9 thousand tons, 100 thousand liters .from.)
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      mechanical systems (by the way reinforcement ДУ200 times in 10 more expensive than ДУ100 fittings)

      How many dozens of times are DU200 fittings cheaper than radar with AFAR?
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      All this is very expensive equipment.

      Two orders of magnitude cheaper than ammunition
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      But when such ships appear, that doesn’t put in the RCC bios a program of approaching this type of ships, for example, from above making a hill before the defeat

      1. The diving RCC will be riddled with Daggers / Phalanxes, it is an ideal target for them
      2. What will it change? horizontal booking is not inferior to vertical
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      The tanks do not refuse armor because they are small, relative to the ship

      Tank builders have a harder task
      reserved volume 3-4 cu. m. - any break through in 99% means a disaster
      penetration does not mean anything in ships, you need to "get" enough explosives under the armor to destroy thousand-ton bulkheads and mechanisms
      1. Nikita Dmitriev
        Nikita Dmitriev 16 November 2015 11: 17
        16
        Why are Burke (9000 tons) and Zamvolta (15000 tons) power plants of the same power?

        Honestly, x / z. In hydrodynamics and in general in practice, this should not be so. I can assume that Znwold can actually issue 30 nodes in an emergency mode for a short time and they indicated this for advertising purposes, unlike Burke, which can issue 32 nodes for days on end. Still possible due to the shape of the contours. But I doubt it. Everything has long been invented in this area.

        How many dozens of times are DU200 fittings cheaper than radar with AFAR?
        AFAR is certainly expensive. 300-500 million d I think. But the fittings are not cheap. 1 pcs. It may cost up to 10K Euro. And on the ship it needs thousands of pieces.

        Two orders of magnitude cheaper than ammunition.
        Well, here you are exaggerating. A warship, excluding weapons, is not a cheap thing. Do not compare with tankers. They cost a penny by the fact that they are essentially floating boxes. A case with a filling without weapons costs about a third.

        1. The diving RCC will be riddled with Daggers / Phalanxes, it is an ideal target for them
        2. What will it change? horizontal booking is not inferior to vertical

        -1
        RCC does not dive from a height, but makes a hill one kilometer from the ship at super sonic speed. Missiles at such distances no longer shoot. Only shoot down art. And she just physically does not have time to visit and get.
        -2
        You can’t reserve a massive add-in. The vessel will tip over. Do not look at the battleships BB2, there was no vital equipment in the superstructure and it was relatively small.
        It’s enough for a modern ship to hit 300kg with a bomb in a superstructure and it will go blind. Only air defense can protect against this.

        You will not reserve radars, deck missile defense containers of near radius. The helicopter hangar is also too heavy.

        Tank builders have a harder task
        reserved volume 3-4 cu. m. - any break through in 99% means a disaster
        penetration does not mean anything in ships, you need to "get" enough explosives under the armor to destroy thousand-ton bulkheads and mechanisms

        The internal bulkheads mean nothing, they are THIN. No one will install bulkheads with a thickness of 100mm. Their purpose is to prevent the spread of water and fire into neighboring compartments. But only.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 November 2015 11: 42
          0
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
          Honestly, x / z. In hydrodynamics and in general in practice, this should not be so.

          But it is. there is no exponential dependence of power on displacement
          there is only a cubic dependence of the power of the power plant on speed: for example, to increase the speed by 1,5 times, you will have to increase the power by 3,3 times
          this has nothing to do with displacement, they generally correlate weakly. It is easy to see this in any example (TKR of the Second World War, 17 thousand full / and, 130 thousand hp, 33 knots. Modern destroyer "31-knot Berk" - 9 thousand tons, 100 thousand liters .from.)
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
          It may cost up to 10K Euro. And on the ship it needs thousands of pieces.

          It turns out nonsense, 1% of the final cost of the destroyer with b / c
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
          A case with a filling without weapons costs about a third.

          Chart for the Chinese frigate 054, with a very primitive and cheap weapon

          Housing with decoration and electrical fittings - 13%
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
          Only shoot down art. And she just physically does not have time to visit and get

          The speed of horizontal guidance of the “Phalanx” is 115 degrees / second, in the vertical plane - similarly, 115 degrees / second. Only cut so
          4000 rds a minute

          Dutch "Goalkeeper" is even cooler
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
          You can’t reserve a massive add-on.

          Do you think that a protected ship would have a layout unlike other ships
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
          Do not look at the battleships BB2, there was no vital equipment in the superstructure

          Why does vital equipment need to be placed in an add-in?
          If you need extra. volumes - it’s enough to increase the width of the body by a couple of meters, and the length can be reduced (the circle has a maximum area of ​​all figures with an equal perimeter, in a three-dimensional space - the maximum volume of the sphere)

          Yes, propulsive qualities will suffer slightly, but what does it matter now, in the era of "Calibers". Art. duels and linear battles, where speed was important, are a thing of the past

          Helicopter hangars can be arranged below deck, as in Peter and Virginia.
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
          The internal bulkheads mean nothing, they are THIN.

          It depends on the ship
          the British "Vanguard" had 3000 tons of anti-fragmentation bulkheads
          system of 25-50 mm steel walls inside the superstructure and the hull

          We initially consider the option with a possible penetration of the armor. To the aid is all the perfection of modern technologies: armored steel, Kevlar, a puff of steel and ceramics ...
          1. Nikita Dmitriev
            Nikita Dmitriev 16 November 2015 12: 08
            +9
            Housing with decoration and electrical fittings - 13%

            You forgot 43% power plant, and 22% construction, the cost of all this will also increase. Especially the construction and power.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 November 2015 12: 22
              -2
              Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
              YOU FORGOT 43% POWER SYSTEM

              Whence
              on the diagram the power plant (red) - 9%
              and since it remains unchanged, according to the rules of mathematics it can be reduced

              Labor costs (22%) - equally distributed across all items
              Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
              Especially the construction and power.

              The power plant remains unchanged
              130 thousand tons - at one time it was enough to disperse Baltimore and Demoyna to 33 knots.
              now such speeds are not needed, the existing 100 thousand tons (4 x GE LM2500) is enough for the eyes
              Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
              You will not reserve radars, deck missile defense containers of near radius.

              Here we are talking, so as not to burn out and not sink with the entire crew, from one hit of the "Harpoon". What is 100% likely to do any existing ship

              And radar protection is very simple. Flat antennas are protected by the layout itself (on opposite sides of the add-in): they cannot be knocked out all in one hit. From small fragments in the near explosion, PRR Shrike / HARM will help with a plastic radio-transparent fairing and AFAR technology (the array continues to work when several transmitters are lost)

              Moreover, as you know, a warship remains operational even with the loss of all radars. Radar is not needed to launch the Caliber; a satellite phone is in the pocket of every officer. Communication is secure.
          2. Down House
            Down House 16 November 2015 14: 16
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            If you need extra. volumes - it is enough to increase the width of the body by a couple of meters, and the length can be reduced

            And again, this is minus speed, plus expense.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 16 November 2015 21: 55
      +4
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      Then asked the opinion of the shipbuilders?

      good good good Super!!! I have been trying to send Oleg Kaptsov for 2-3 of his articles on booking ships for clarifications to some design bureau of shipbuilding! But no, it doesn't work. It's better to defend your opinion with us, with the "sofa" laughing
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      Now, no matter what, the main thing in warships is the ratio of cost to efficiency.

      Nuuu, according to some authors, the weight of modern armor, like polystyrene, by strength, like titanium, and by value like paper, which in no way, based on the main article, should not affect (at least influence, but not much ) for displacement, hence the cost of the ship
      I would like you to cite as an example, the distribution of the weight loads of something modern and not secret, so that our "analysts" and lovers of capital booking understand that reality and chanting are two different things wink
      Sincerely hi
  • Corsair
    Corsair 16 November 2015 11: 20
    +4
    Quote: man in the street
    The main arguments of opponents of the reservation:

    what There is one, in my opinion, an indisputable argument - funds have been invented for a long time already, and equipping a torpedo with these means will not be difficult, so shipbuilders apparently do not bother with strong armor.
    A simple example of an RPG rocket weighing 4,5 kg pierces 300 mm of armor, imagine what would happen if the penetration warhead of a torpedo rocket would weigh about 20-30 kg.
    Build ships with meter armor? Modifying a rocket to armor-piercing in terms of money will cost designers hundreds (or maybe thousands of times) cheaper.
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 November 2015 12: 11
      +8
      Quote: Corsair
      rockets will weigh approximately 20-30 kg

      Well, you get a hole of diameters in 100 mm, the ship is not a tank with its minimum armored volume.
      It’s not saying that protection against torpedoes is out of the question here, a contactless explosion under the bottom is much worse than getting on board. But here, a larger armored ship wins because of the banal size and mechanical strength .. So one torpedo papadie will survive, and here is Burke vryatli.
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 16 November 2015 13: 25
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Well, you get a hole of diameters in 100 mm, the ship is not a tank with its minimum armored volume.

        what For example, I took only 20-30 kg, and if 100-200 kg, and the second charge explodes inside - let's say a thermobaric charge, what will happen to the ship, or something like napalm?
        And yes, about a rocket dive under the bottom - a fairly simple and feasible solution.
      2. Down House
        Down House 16 November 2015 14: 20
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Well, you get a hole of diameters in 100 mm, the ship is not a tank with its minimum armored volume.

        It will turn out as if it were hit from a cannon in zoldaten - the body armor is whole and there is no zolaten!
        Here the question is not only about armor penetration - the ship itself may not sustain the rocket if it is built according to the modern layout and is stupidly sheathed with armor on top.
    2. common man
      common man 16 November 2015 12: 49
      12
      1. About the impact of cumulative warheads on large armored volumes of ships here has been said a lot before. THEY ARE SMALL EFFECTIVE. The highest damage to a large ship will be caused by a high explosive warhead blown up inside the hull. And for this, it must be high-explosive. moreover, the more the ship is armored, the more it will be armor-piercing and less explosive, i.e. the destructive effects of ammunition with the same mass will decrease.
      2.
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      -1
      RCC does not dive from a height, but makes a hill one kilometer from the ship at super sonic speed.
      And can you imagine Granite flying at supersonic and making a hill a kilometer from the ship? Actually flying around a circle with a radius of 300 meters. (First, the curve for takeoff, then for leveling and diving) Someone, count the loads please.
      3.
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      ALL Shipbuilders try, without losing combat potential, to reduce the displacement of the ship, and not increase it.
      Or maybe they are trying in vain?
      In general, if the reservation saves the lives of the crew. moreover, it will help to strike back at the adversary; it will justify the increase in value.
      PS The reservation left the ships in the 50s, when the young missile weapons were large and heavy in the literal sense. Missiles the size of a fighter, launchers like towers of a battleship, a BIUS with a five-story building. Moreover, these missiles only at the expense of their mass could pierce the side or smash the superstructure. Now the size of the missiles has become an order of magnitude smaller. and their number is greater. Therefore, the use of armor as a passive defense of a ship is entitled to discussion.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 16 November 2015 16: 13
        +1
        [quote = layman]
        RCC does not dive from a height, but makes a hill one kilometer from the ship at super sonic speed. [/ quote] And can you imagine Granite flying at supersonic sound and making a hill a kilometer from the ship? Actually flying around a circle with a radius of 300 meters. (First, the curve to take off, then to align and dive) Someone, count the loads please. [/ Quote]

        Something seems to me that under such given conditions of maneuver overload, the slide will be under a thousand G ....
      2. max702
        max702 16 November 2015 22: 52
        +1
        Quote: man in the street
        PS The reservation left the ships in the 50s, when the young missile weapons were large and heavy in the literal sense. Missiles the size of a fighter, launchers like towers of a battleship, a BIUS with a five-story building. Moreover, these missiles only at the expense of their mass could pierce the side or smash the superstructure. Now the size of the missiles has become an order of magnitude smaller. and their number is greater. Therefore, the use of armor as a passive defense of a ship is entitled to discussion.

        You still forgot about the wretched air defense of those years that could not get into these target monsters, today's air defense will not give them the slightest chance, and indeed it will be necessary to look for the carriers of these whoppers.
  • Down House
    Down House 16 November 2015 14: 05
    +1
    Quote: man in the street
    4. "Let's spread all the radars". The main crew is intact and the ship is under way.

    And what's the point?
    The meaning of the modern "main caliber" is to release missiles before it is destroyed - and then there is a nuclear winter and a zombie war wassat
    And if you fight with "pirates" in the coastal-river zone - then ships of this displacement are banally redundant - there will be enough banal "armored boats" and they are, for example, built in the USSR, but this is a highly specialized technique that has no place in the military doctrine of many countries.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 November 2015 18: 48
    +4
    Quote: man in the street
    And you yourself little to explain? At least try to argue your point of view. And then an argument, like
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Although, for youngsters to read such nonsense will be interesting. Especially ecstasy will fall from the last paragraph with conclusions!
    somehow it doesn’t work.

    I will personally answer for you wink , because I have already come home from work and have a couple of minutes ... I'll try to be shorter. Comrade Kaptsov can write normal articles, I have already spoken about this. In my opinion, even the previous one, I liked it a few days ago. BUT! Comrade Kaptsov was so carried away by his idea of ​​booking a dubious ship that several articles in a row of the same content (only the photos and argumentation change) are seeking recognition. I'm talking about booking! I have already given my arguments earlier in the comments to the first article on armor and I am not going to repeat myself, unlike Comrade Kaptsov. I am finished off by the persistence with which they are trying to prove something in different ways ... To whom ????? If you are so smart and believe in what you are doing, then go to Kaliningrad, to "Yantar" or to St. Petersburg (Severodvinsk, etc.), bring your developments, prove to those "stupid builders who know nothing about design and weights with values ​​"that you're right ,. but they are not. And then everyone will see what a hero you are! Or I suggested it is simpler - contact the design bureau, where modern warships are designed and built, and let them explain to you why today's shipbuilders are stupid compared to those who built heavy cruisers of the WWII period! Weak? WEAK !!!! Because there they will briefly explain why you are wrong, and here you are almost the best !!!! And I just feel sorry for my time to argue over the questions established for me personally with childish stubbornness! And if you think that this is an excuse, then for my 40 years I have been studying the history of the fleet for more than 20 years, I have shoveled a bunch of literature and for me it does not seem authoritative or evidential to pour from empty to empty.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 November 2015 19: 29
    +1
    Quote: man in the street
    The main arguments of opponents of the reservation:
    1. "Anti-ship missiles of the" Granite "type, all the armor does not care." And there are many carriers with this type of anti-ship missile in the world? ;
    2. "Let's make diving warheads";
    3. "We will make" smart "warheads that will hit the unprotected parts of the ship";
    All this is good, but all this still needs to be done, and placed somewhere, that is, to build the fleet again
    4. "Let's spread all the radars". The main crew is intact and the ship is under way.
    Oleg’s articles, judging by the number of comments, cause a lively discussion, and in the dispute, as you know, truth is born.
    PS Why on tanks, in spite of all AZ, DZ, and other ZZ do not refuse armor?

    I'll start from behind - because the tank will not drown in the ground. And for the ship there is a certain pattern in which it is able to maintain buoyancy. A plane is the ability to fly. So for a tank such a law is not relevant to the smallest degree. On the earth, other ratios in everything than on the sea wink If you understood this, would you ask such a stupid question smile And to be honest, all this fuss around the armor begins to strain ... I already gave exhaustive comments on this topic in previous articles about O. Kaptsov’s armor and I just don’t want to repeat myself.
    For you, I'll just say briefly: when you think about the opposition of armor and a projectile and follow this trend from the appearance of the "Warrior" to the end of WWII, then you will understand why, with the qualitative change in weapons from the second half of the twentieth century, the approach to booking has changed. ... The armor has passed from one of the fundamental factors for ensuring unsinkability into ordinary ballast, which no longer actively participates in the protection of the ship due to its weight and dimensions. It is present today, but only in that quantity and in the same weight as is necessary for the best, within the allotted displacement, protection of the parts of the ship that are important today. A "Harpoon" is easier to shoot down with air defense systems than to hang 2000 tons. steel, in the hope that (if the air defense systems run out of ammunition), the missile will hit this thin belt along the waterline and prove the correctness of the armor in the form that Kaptsov achieves - at the level of WWII cruisers (100-152mm). Kindergarten... hi
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 November 2015 21: 26
    +5
    Quote: man in the street
    And you yourself little to explain? At least try to argue your point of view

    Yes, they have already brought 100500 times, how much is it possible?
    We take an ordinary post-WWII light cruiser. In order not to go far - project 68, cruisers of the "Chapaev" type, were laid down before the war.
    In principle - such a lively illustration to the theories of Oleg Kaptsov - 10 thousand tons of standard VI, 34 speed knots, 2339 tons of armor protection. And what's the point in modern combat?
    Long 100 mm armored belt, already 3,3 m high, of which 1,3 meters are under water. An excellent indicator for an artillery cruiser, but the bad thing is that anti-ship missiles (well, except for Exocet, maybe) do not fly at that height, so the hits will be much higher. You can try to raise the armored belt higher, but it weighs more than 600 tons, and here problems with stability will already begin. Over the armored belt already laid 50-mm armored deck. Purely theoretically, it can and will protect against close rupture of the RCC warhead containing from 150 kg of modern explosives and higher, but in practice it will most likely simply be driven into engine rooms. And if not - it’s easy to equip warheads with missiles of not too large sizes but high strength — dispersed to hypersonic speeds by an explosion, they will pierce 50 mm armor as nice, but there’s no need for a lot of chassis. And what to do? Increase armor thickness? To grow it up to 100 mm will cost 817 tons (that is how much the deck of Chapaev weighs) an extra TOP weight. And what kind of case will you have to design in order to give it satisfactory stability?
    But even if the armor remains unbroken - so what? Everything above the citadel will be destroyed (you just always need to remember that very small volumes are reserved above the citadel for armored ships, and the main superstructures and so on did not have armor), and after all, the main battle posts are there. As a result, after entering the 7-8 anti-ship missile system, there will remain a charred stub, which has completely lost its combat effectiveness and is kept on the water exclusively due to the citadel. During the Second World War, such a fragment could expect to hide from the enemy (at night, for example) and go to base, but in a modern battle with modern detection tools and the enormous range of carrier-based aircraft and naval anti-ship missiles, its chances of avoiding the destruction of minuscule.
    Quote: man in the street
    PS Why on tanks, in spite of all AZ, DZ, and other ZZ do not refuse armor?

    (a heavy sigh) Because on the tank its "armor" volume is "crammed" to the hatches with engines, ammunition, cannons, machine guns, crew and so on. The ship has a much less dense layout.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 16 November 2015 22: 17
    0
    4. "Let's spread all the radars". The main crew is intact and the ship is under way.

    Immediately in my head a simple dumb plan of attack drew:
    1. "useless" "Harpoons" / "Uranians" / "Exocets" or whatever else we are spreading antenna posts and add-ons (the firmware of their GOS to correct accordingly is a simple matter);
    2. when the ship loses radar and, as a result, medium / long-range air defense, a wave enters the game: the same anti-ship missiles as in item 1, plus a couple of special gifts carrying nuclear warheads.

    It seems to me that the dimensions of the warhead of the same "Harpoon" will fit a charge of 1-5 kt, which is enough for the eyes to destroy any armored monster with a direct hit; even the most Krupp armor will not save here.

    As a result, the real sense of armor will only be in the war with the Papuans, who managed to get somewhere light RCC; as an example, take the same mess in the Falklands. In a large-scale conflict with a really strong enemy with the use of nuclear weapons (and how to stay here?), Armor will help little.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 16 November 2015 22: 48
    +3
    1 There is a nuclear weapon all the armor do not care.
    2 There are torpedoes.
    3 The message is unclear.
    4 ...

    The truth does not depend on the opinions of the debaters, it’s enough to quote other people's idiotic statements.
    P.S. If your enemy ate a crocodile - this does not mean that he is your friend.
  • seos
    seos 18 November 2015 19: 58
    -1
    No "Granites" will be required, one "Harpoon" with a penetrating warhead is enough ... and all the billions spent on this trough will go under water ...
    1. Kars
      Kars 18 November 2015 21: 30
      +3
      Quote: seos
      vatite and one "Harpoon" with a penetrating warhead

      yeah, and the penetrating part will have less explosives, and the speed of the harpoon is somehow not enough.
  • Santa Fe
    16 November 2015 07: 51
    +5
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Especially ecstasy will fall from the last paragraph with conclusions!

    It’s unfortunate that the first comment on the article is so uninteresting and wretched
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 16 November 2015 19: 03
      +4
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      It’s unfortunate that the first comment on the article is so uninteresting and wretched

      Self-love hurt ??? wink Because to your first article about booking modern ships, I gave exhaustive comments when it was still interesting, and for the third (fourth, fifth) article, which repeats with obstinacy (not perseverance, because perseverance is perfecting oneself) attempts to impose one’s opinion to readers and prove something (we’re all stupid compared to you and we don’t understand anything in the structure of the ship wink ) enough of these comments hi
      PS You have interesting articles that are interesting to read (I have already noted this), but in this topic you are bored with your perseverance (to put it mildly). You have not proved anything, but you are ruining your authority. I personally feel like a drum, but it will be bad when you slide down to where they will openly laugh at you. In the meantime, only sarcasm wink . Criticism, it’s criticism for that, so that a person thinks about himself and changes. Or at least not get worse. And learn to distinguish the difference between perseverance and stubbornness.
      Sincerely, hi
      By the way, many people already laugh at you, do not increase their number with your stubbornness, otherwise pride will suffer even more smile . And turn to those structures that are engaged in serious business, there you will be exhaustively given answers to your questions in the field of shipbuilding ... The truth must be sought where it can be found, and not among your own kind. Well, if you don’t feel like it, then don’t be offended by the fact that you are criticized. How many people - so many opinions wink
    2. max702
      max702 16 November 2015 23: 22
      0
      The question of armor is a question of tactics, and a question of strategy is why the FLEET is needed at all? When and under what conditions will it be applied? In the United States, this is an element of attack, and due to the prevailing circumstances, they attack only opponents who are unable to give them a full-fledged rebuff, otherwise other methods and methods are used .. accordingly, they do not really need armor, there will be a leap in technology when from Toyota "or from the shoulder of the shooter it will be possible to launch a rocket that will drown the destroyer, then yes the armor will return to its place in a swoop, but for now there is no threat to the US fleet and there is no need for armor. TO FIGHT THE FLEET EVERYTHING came the Arctic fox to the planet Earth! Or does someone consider an attack on our fleet not a reason for a third world war? So we will watch how our Pacific Fleet, Black Sea Fleet and Northern Fleet are destroyed at the same time, and we are not doing anything about it? Come on! As soon as it becomes known about this, the mobile launchers will leave the units, and perhaps they will launch directly and from the location, the mine will not be too late, the aviation will be a little late, but it should also be in time for the holiday .. and tell me why in this case our ships armor a la battleships of the Second World War? Will she somehow change the alignment or affect the situation? No! The last time the world was on the brink (perhaps) there was an incident with the "Kursk" the entire SF bombed the water area for several hours for something, and then there was a phone call and a conversation, after which debts were written off and loans were issued .. So if in real life will turn around and the fleet will begin to be massively destroyed here, the calls will not help, but the buttons will be pressed for fear of not having time to do this later .. the withdrawal of the USA is not needed because there are no threats (yet), but we do not need it because it will not save ..
  • IS-80
    IS-80 16 November 2015 08: 17
    +5
    Quote: Rurikovich
    He went through it, looked at the pictures, ran his eyes ... Noticing familiar words about the free volumes of the case, armor, etc., you can immediately see who wrote ...

    Here you can guess by the title of the article. Again Admiral Kaptsov leads the battleship squadron to attack. smile
  • Malkor
    Malkor 16 November 2015 08: 48
    +1
    Since we even have tanks and other armored combat vehicles that can be used in a nuclear war, I would like to hear what is the advantage of an armored head over a maneuverable destroyer when tactical nuclear weapons hit them.
    comments of moronic youngsters that this is impossible are not accepted.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 November 2015 08: 56
      +3
      Quote: Malkor
      what is the advantage of an armored head over a maneuverable destroyer when tactical nuclear weapons hit them.

      And why did you get that the armored galoshes have worse maneuverability

      TKR "Haguro" (1925), 36 knots (~ 70 km / h), modern destroyers never dreamed of

      ps / the radius of circulation of the battleship Iowa was less than that of the destroyer Fletcher
  • Sergei1982
    Sergei1982 16 November 2015 13: 49
    +3
    It’s a lot easier to come up with a new armor-piercing warhead on anti-ship missiles than to make armor on a ship, and there will not be many problems with the warhead: a small ATG weighing 10-20 kg pierces 1-1,5 m of armor, so creating armor on a ship is a utopia .
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 16 November 2015 17: 45
      +1
      Granite breaks 12 meters and what the godfather, but only weighs 7 tons? The ship is not a tank.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 16 November 2015 22: 43
    +1
    Does a man seriously believe that armor is not installed because of its high cost?
  • ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 16 November 2015 07: 10
    21
    Comrade Kaptsov - unsinkable battleship IN ....
    Good morning everyone!!!!!
    1. blizart
      blizart 16 November 2015 07: 23
      +6
      Let's already ask Oleg to allocate a conditional section of the unfinished "Kronstadt" and "Granite". We have the status of a media outlet. Rightly, he deserves this with his persistence and non-trivial views.
      1. Santa Fe
        16 November 2015 07: 49
        +2
        Quote: blizart
        conditional section of the unfinished "Kronstadt" and "Granite"

        why exactly "Kronstadt"?
        here he, with his reservation scheme, designed for the threats of that time

        Ships of the 69 project The main airborne belt with a thickness of 230 mm and a height of 5 m extended from 62 to 431 sp. (76,8% of the ship's waterline length). Under water, it descended to 1,6 m. According to calculations, the main airborne belt was not penetrated by a German 280-mm projectile from a distance of more than 70 kbt (12,8 km) at a heading angle of up to 50 °. (weight 330 kg, speed at the time of the meeting approx. 2М)

        And what has to do with the practically decommissioned "Granite"

        We're not defending ourselves against granites. In the West, there is no anti-ship missile system larger than the Harpoon. A promising subsonic LRASM - and she will not be able to do anything
    2. ICT
      ICT 16 November 2015 07: 43
      +4
      Quote: ziqzaq
      Comrade Kaptsov - unsinkable battleship IN ....


      the meaning of each new article is understandable (even from the title), but it is easy to read and with interest --- talent is obtained.

      I suggest throwing topics for him for articles that have not been covered in one way or another.

      1. DEATH IN THE SOUTH SEAS "Prince of Wales" and "Ripals"
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 November 2015 12: 14
        +1
        Quote: TIT
        1. DEATH IN THE SOUTH SEAS "Prince of Wales" and "Ripals"

        http://ship.bsu.by/text/4020
        Or are you interested in not being armored Wells and Ripals? Or Fort M Ripals?
        1. ICT
          ICT 16 November 2015 19: 00
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Or are you interested in what


          Quote: TIT
          I suggest throwing topics for him for articles that have not been covered in one way or another.


          I want to hear this story as presented by Oleg (I read the story itself as I read it with photos and additional digressions about the general situation on the theater)
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 November 2015 21: 33
            +1
            Quote: TIT
            I want to hear this story presented by Oleg

            It’s a little unclear, do you like Oleg’s presentation style, or something specific about King George type LCs that are considered the most miserable WWII LK.
            And on the topic personally, according to my .. orders .. the articles were - about the struggle of battleships and aircraft carriers)))
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 16 November 2015 07: 18
    +6
    I believe the issue of booking ships will arise only after real naval battles and most likely not with the Americans ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Per se.
    Per se. 16 November 2015 08: 14
    +9
    Don't understand what was the "sedition" of the deleted comment? The Americans are booking ships, the Arleigh Burke destroyers are an example of this, and they drew their conclusions after the Falklands. 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 metacentric height of the 2 series ships has been increased by reducing the weight of the superstructure. On three quarters of the length of the hull of the 2 series destroyers, the thickness of the metal sheathing was increased, fuel efficiency was improved due to changes in the design of the bow of the vessel. The propeller design has also been improved to reduce cavitation noise. In addition, the living quarters of the destroyers of the series were expanded to accommodate the personnel of the air group, as well as female military personnel. In order to increase combat survivability, five armored bulkheads were additionally installed in the ship's hull. 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 BIC. The premises of the power plant, REV and control posts have Kevlar ballistic protection. 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).
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 16 November 2015 09: 01
      +1
      And what can you protect with Kevlar? It is used more for weight loss rather than protection. Abromovich's yacht is partially made of kevlar. And 130 tons of Kevlar are too expensive for our country.
      An analogy can be drawn with other branches of the army, which are more often involved in military conflicts. The Americans arrived in Iraq on the Hamera, and are leaving in monstrous units. Terrorists ride excellently on unarmored hilux.
      In aviation, booking a Su-25 attack aircraft proved to be justified. But booking a Su-34 bomber is a weedy decision.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 16 November 2015 09: 40
        +6
        It's about reasonable protection, not about making battleships or attack aircraft out of everything. Nevertheless, almost all combat aircraft have an armored backrest for the pilot's seats and frontal armored glass, often, fuel tanks and ammunition are armored. As for Kevlar on "Arlie Burke", it is not the only element that increases survivability, it is a pity that you only paid attention to Kevlar, which, however, performs anti-fragmentation protection precisely as armor. The fact that terrorists ride in jeeps does not negate armored vehicles, and it is necessary to distinguish the guerrilla methods of militants, countering them, from a war with a full-fledged army and navy. The fact that the Americans arrived in jeeps in Iraq, and left in "monster-like units" ... In Iraq, everything was decided by air supremacy, that the United States seized in front of Hussein's army, finally, besides jeeps, the Yankees also had Bradleys with Abrams ... It is much sadder that in our country, where it is not necessary, such havno as "Bradley" was made almost a role model, having already spawned "mastodons" in their new developments of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which are more needed as police cars, special forces vehicles , in counter-guerrilla war, anti-terrorist operations, and not a big war in the defense of the vastness of Russia. Everything is good in moderation and to the place.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Mera joota
        Mera joota 16 November 2015 09: 49
        0
        Quote: ism_ek
        But booking a Su-34 bomber is a weedy decision.

        Weedy ... very yes ...
    2. RPG_
      RPG_ 16 November 2015 09: 14
      +4
      They simply strengthened the power set to increase the strength of the structure as a whole, a known drawback was especially severely felt on the Ticonderoges.
      Local booking is certainly good, but it is not worth comparing it with the citadel for a completely different level. It is able to save the ship from the Lakishots, and that’s all.
  • Fox
    Fox 16 November 2015 08: 17
    +5
    guys, let's throw off Oleg on an armored boat (we won’t collect more), let the person rejoice))))
    but seriously, there’s something in it. tanks, helmets, armor plates were also written off, but it turned out somehow. Who knows what the heads of the designers are clogged with, maybe they’ll come up with what kind of bronze-death)))
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 16 November 2015 08: 33
      17
      It is, of course, fun to dwell here, but when the abyss is around the sea, and your whole life is in the ship, no matter how gouged it is from damage, if the armor saves, it makes sense. Even more so, if this armor and the ship already doomed, will give survivability for a couple of extra minutes, it can save more lives of sailors. It is a pity that we need to fight like a fish on ice, trying to prove that increasing survivability is a solvable problem, and it is worth it to deal with. Now there are a lot of new materials and technologies, and there is no need to laugh about armadillos of the past, they are not already discussed in comparisons, but about improving the protection of modern ships using modern means.
      1. Santa Fe
        16 November 2015 08: 48
        +6
        Quote: Per se.
        if the armor saves, it makes sense. Even more so, if this armor and the ship already doomed, will give survivability for a couple of extra minutes, it can save more lives of sailors

        Or at least use up ammunition

        moreover, armor plates are mere trifles
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 16 November 2015 17: 55
          +1
          About 3 Lyama (rubles) per wheel per ton of reservation will cost (steel, plastics, Kevlar and Co.). 2000t of armor = 6,000,0000,000! rubles. Is it a lot? Round up to 100 bucks bucks (because a very large hemorrhoid with welding). At a good price is not acidic. These are 50 caliber rockets ...
    2. RPG_
      RPG_ 16 November 2015 09: 15
      +1
      With a million bucks each? Unfortunately this is an exorbitant amount for my budget.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • Santa Fe
    16 November 2015 08: 24
    +1
    Okay, who has something to add about the discrepancy between the cost of civilian and warships three orders of magnitude
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 16 November 2015 09: 05
      +9
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Okay, who has something to add about the difference in the value of civilian and military ships by three orders of magnitude

      There is something to add about the cost of the reservation. Undoubtedly, the cost of iron is a penny, and there is no point in arguing. But nevertheless, booking is still not free and the cost of the ship will increase when using advanced booking. Why? Because a ship with advanced armor will have a larger size and mass than Burke. On a Burke-sized ship, booking thicker than 50 mm is not possible. If we want to book a ship seriously (ie at least 100 mm belt), it will already be a ship of the size and mass of our 1164. This, in turn, will lead to an increase in the construction time for each unit. And every extra month of the ship's stay at the shipyard, you need to pay salaries to workers and engineers who assemble the ship, pay for electricity and so on. As a result, the unit cost will increase, the number of ships in the series will decrease. What will we get in return? Armor that penetrates any anti-ship missile system adequate to the size of the ship. Although in the United States, even during the construction of the Brooklyns, they came to the conclusion that the massiveness of the construction is more important than the individual combat superiority of each individual unit. And After the Brooklyns came to the Clevelands that I admire. In general, iron certainly does not cost much, but the cost of additional iron is not zero.
      1. Santa Fe
        16 November 2015 09: 23
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        and the cost of the ship will increase when applying advanced booking

        Of course it will grow. But will it be noticeable - against the backdrop of 2 billion of modern destroyer
        Quote: Alex_59
        Because a ship with advanced armor will have larger dimensions and mass than Burke. On a ship the size of Burke, booking thicker than 50 mm is not possible.

        You even read too lazy to write immediately))

        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 body volumes. There are no international restrictions on tonnage in our time. And the cost of the metalwork itself is vanishingly small against the background of other items of expenditure

        Quote: Alex_59
        This in turn will lead to an increase in the construction time of each unit.

        Tell it STX and Daewoo Shipbuilding
        average pace of construction of the 330 meter supertanker - 18 months

        the Japanese build helicopter carriers in a year (27 thousand tons of full military)
        destroyer hull launched in 15 months. after the bookmark, and then they wait a year until they bring art from Italy. the gun

        The assembly of metal structures does not cost anything and does not in any way affect the pace of construction, in contrast to the readiness and availability of high-tech "filling"
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 16 November 2015 09: 31
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          But will it be noticeable - against the backdrop of 2 billion of modern destroyer

          With a reduction in the military budget?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          You even read too lazy to write immediately))

          I did not understand the essence of your answer (By the way, I am glad that we are again on you). The fact is that the growth of dimensions and water displacement with advanced booking is inevitable. And this gives "nothing", because the issue of penetrating armor by modern anti-ship missiles was resolved back in the 60s.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The assembly of metal structures does not cost anything and does not affect the pace of construction

          Our dialogues are not good for you. Still nothing and nothing. I wrote in my post that the hardware costs a penny (that is, I kind of agree with you), but here you have to argue. Pennies - yes. There is nothing.
          1. Santa Fe
            16 November 2015 09: 47
            +2
            Quote: Alex_59
            With a reduction in the military budget?

            With a reduction in the military budget, they will not build a ship
            the presence of armor and or refusal of it will not play a role
            Quote: Alex_59
            And this gives "nothing", because the issue of penetrating armor by modern anti-ship missiles was resolved back in the 60s.

            How could modern RCC be in the 60 years? don't you find it strange
            Quote: Alex_59
            Kopeks - yes.

            those. does not matter against the background of other items of expenditure
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 16 November 2015 10: 00
              +5
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              How could modern RCC be in the 60 years? don't you find it strange

              This is demagoguery and a play on words. The designers of the Soviet anti-ship missiles (including Granite, which you dislike), unlike you, remembered that the battleship Iowa was not "out of date" throughout the Cold War. And it somehow had to be drowned. Therefore, 400 mm of armor for Granite is not a problem. smile
              1. Santa Fe
                16 November 2015 10: 10
                0
                Quote: Alex_59
                This is demagogy and pun.

                the question was asked -
                Which of the modern anti-ship missiles were in the 60 years?

                where does the Iowa. 400 mm - I wonder how. at an angle meeting over 30 hail. rebound guaranteed from normal
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 16 November 2015 10: 21
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Which of the modern anti-ship missiles were in the 60 years?

                  Well, if this is so important - look for the year of the beginning of the development of "Granite". When you find - look how many armored ships were in the US Navy that year. (hint - there were more than 4 Iowa). Then the puzzle can come together. Although I know in advance what you will say - Granite is not modern junk.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  400 mm - I wonder how.

                  This is sov. Secret, but I am assuming a HEAT warhead. Just don’t go back to throwing a 100-page srach about how to insert a high-explosive warhead into a hole with a diameter of 30 mm. It's boring. If you want to figure out "how" - search the internet yourself. There are scraps of information sufficient to understand exactly how.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    16 November 2015 10: 41
                    0
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Well, if this is so important - look for the year of the beginning of the development of "Granite"

                    Those. modern rockets in the 1960 years did not exist

                    Instead of them there were "Kometa", KSShch and P-15 "Termit", which in their dimensions corresponded to the fighter. Thanks to the imperfect technologies of that era, their starting mass reached 3 tons. Warhead (on average) - 500 kg.

                    These monsters have sometimes been tested against armored target ships. At the same time, even hitting the TKR pr. 68-bis (not the most perfect ship, the belt is only 100 mm) did not give clear answers to the question: "Was the armor broken?"

                    Nowadays, anti-ship missiles have decreased by 10 times, simultaneously with the possibility of their use by tactical fighters (what is the density in a salvo! At least a few pieces). a return to the 3-ton KSSh is not possible - individual monsters are torn apart by air defense
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    This is a top secret

                    What a pity, in the most interesting place
              2. mav1971
                mav1971 16 November 2015 16: 45
                0
                Quote: Alex_59
                Therefore 400 mm armor for Granite is not a problem. smile


                Strange though.
                Absolutely incomprehensible egg-shaped warhead with a diameter of 0.6m.

                I quote:
                "It can be noted that the separate design of anti-ship missiles and missiles for anti-ship missiles 3M45 (USSR, 1983) of the anti-ship missile system (anti-ship missile system) Granit (“ rocket-engine ”arrangement [9]) led to an inappropriate shape of the head part of the anti-ship missile system (such as concrete artillery shell [11]), since PrBCH (λ = 1,65 [9, 11]) does not participate in penetrating ship barriers, which is shown on the basis of numerical modeling (Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 1981) RCC with an obstacle. "
                .
                It should also be noted that all foreign RCCs as warheads have PBBCHs with an elongation λ from 2,0 to 3,1

                Original.
                QUESTIONS OF CREATING BATTLE EQUIPMENT OF KINETIC ACTION OF MANAGED ROCKETS
                27.11.2012
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 16 November 2015 21: 47
                  +1
                  Quote: mav1971
                  Strange though.
                  Absolutely incomprehensible egg-shaped warhead with a diameter of 0.6m.

                  All these questions are secret and we can only guess. But that quote that you cite in a sense confirms my assumptions. The same egg-shaped warhead really does not participate in the penetration of the side and armor. For her, this is most likely done by the shaped charge located in front of her. In the performance characteristics of "Granita" it is openly said about the existence of a cumulative high-explosive warhead. At the same time, no one claims that a shaped charge and a high-explosive charge are one single charge. Most likely there are two of them. Just in the internet, pictures of only one high-explosive component are walking.
                  Plus, all these calculations correlate with the presence of a real target - the Iowa aircraft with a reservation of just over 300 mm. Those. 400 mm is a small margin for guaranteed Iowa outreach.
          2. dvg79
            dvg79 16 November 2015 10: 14
            0
            This is how I didn’t hear anything about armor-piercing warheads. Of course, there will be a displacement growth, but when we study the evolution of cruisers, for example, it can be seen that it was mainly due to increased weapons.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Mera joota
      Mera joota 16 November 2015 09: 56
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Okay, who has something to add about the discrepancy between the cost of civilian and warships three orders of magnitude

      Only for operating costs. Booking will lead to an increase in displacement, corresponding to fuel consumption. When counting ships on the fingers, then perhaps this is not so critical. If there are more than a dozen of them, then yes ... Then prove in Congress that an increase in annual spending on the fleet by several yards is justified by an increase in the security of ships under construction. ETOGES how many blacks and Latinos will remain without benefits ... for whom will they vote?
      1. Santa Fe
        16 November 2015 10: 03
        +2
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Booking will lead to an increase in displacement, corresponding to fuel consumption.

        XYNXX tons larger than Burke

        they have a power plant of the same power, moreover, a more modern lockup with full electric propulsion
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 16 November 2015 11: 46
          +3
          Zamvolt never really went out to sea, but already "more economical"
          1. Santa Fe
            16 November 2015 11: 49
            0
            And what will it change. There from everything is obvious from the layout
            the same power with a more advanced and efficient electric transmission
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 16 November 2015 12: 05
              0
              Burke 6000 miles on 18 nodes. Socket will predict 4500 on 13 nodes
              1. Santa Fe
                16 November 2015 12: 08
                0
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Burke 6000 miles on 18 nodes. Socket will predict 4500 on 13 nodes

                at what fuel supply
                u burke know xnumx tons of kerosene

                Electric transmission should be more economical a priori.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 16 November 2015 12: 19
                  0
                  want to say, in Zamvolta there will be 700 tons of kerosene? diluted with sea water?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    16 November 2015 12: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    want to say, in Zamvolte there will be 700 tons of kerosene

                    I want to say that the data 4500 on 13 knots. not true

                    large ships always had great range and autonomy
  • McLuha-MacLeod
    McLuha-MacLeod 16 November 2015 09: 01
    +4
    As you do not book a ship, an explosion under the keel breaks the hull in half from hydraulic pressure.
    Now all torpedoes are ground for this. And if the RCC will dive under the ship?
    1. dvg79
      dvg79 16 November 2015 10: 18
      +2
      If my grandmother had eggs ... well, you understand. How much time and money will be spent on a new RCC with such properties? I think a lot, a lot.
    2. shurup
      shurup 16 November 2015 11: 26
      +4
      It will be a flying torpedo tube with a brake parachute (PC leTal product). The disadvantage is the vulnerability at the time of diving.
    3. mav1971
      mav1971 16 November 2015 11: 58
      +8
      Quote: McLooka-MacLeod
      As you do not book a ship, an explosion under the keel breaks the hull in half from hydraulic pressure.
      Now all torpedoes are ground for this. And if the RCC will dive under the ship?


      how far from the ship is the water entry?
      How will "just dive" be carried out at a speed of 700-2000 km / h - either self-destruction, or "one of two things".
      Too different environments, air and water.
      Will it be only warhead work? which just has to get to the case like a simple blank?
      Or is it a full-fledged projectile controlled at the final stage?

      Threat. Abstract:
      The rocket should say the air defense: "wait, I'll dive right now", then reduce the speed to 200 km / hour, make a slide, enter the water, switch the seeker, shake off the sweat from the forehead, and gurgle "drove on". :)
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 16 November 2015 10: 59
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    they have a power plant of the same power, moreover, a more modern lockup with full electric propulsion


    Their GEMs are unequal. The total complexity and cost of the Zumvolta power plant is higher. It's like a Toyota Prius to compare with a grant. Formally, the engine power is comparable, in fact it is not.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 November 2015 11: 16
      0
      Quote: _KM_
      Their GEMs are unequal.

      Is the power on the propeller shafts the same?

      At 5000 tons of difference in displacement
  • marinier
    marinier 16 November 2015 11: 04
    +2
    Good time of the day!
    In my opinion, the article is informative, it’s certainly not pure. But it’s certain
    literacy.
    From menia, the words of blogging are welcome to the Author!
  • shurup
    shurup 16 November 2015 11: 14
    0
    A ship is worse than a fire on board than holes in an armor and the absence of a nose with anchors.
    And in general, shouldn't we return to the "water-armored vessel" project or protect ourselves with our own coal reserves?
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 16 November 2015 11: 43
    +1
    I agree with the author that my Soviet era, one list of equipment and a mailbox, numerous "gunsmiths and instrumentists from all over the USSR" showed that the main money in military shipbuilding goes to "stuffing" No.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 16 November 2015 13: 15
    +9
    It's so ridiculous to read many comments ... A design engineer who works with warships tried to explain the need for armor in modern conditions, the sofa experts shut up at a stroke. Of course, a warship practically does not differ in hull from a ship, it is also iron. But this is how it is embodied on practice, you at least read it. There, by the way, is a completely different set, which is designed for completely different loads. If respected sofa experts had ever attended practical shooting, they would probably have been very surprised to learn what damage the ship's own weapon inflicts when using it. For other experts it would be a revelation to find out that the anti-ship missile before the defeat of the ship makes a slide, and not stupidly hits the side. I know, I have often been to such events, so I understand what it’s about. , but the hull costs a lot of money - much more than ANY civilian ship of comparable displacement.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 16 November 2015 21: 08
      0
      Quote: Dimon19661
      Well, in terms of cost, really the lion's share of the funds goes to the "stuffing", but the hull also costs a lot of money, much more than ANY civilian ship of comparable displacement.

      Vaughn Comrade Kaptsov explain it wink
  • Down House
    Down House 16 November 2015 13: 26
    +6
    Two questions to the author.
    1. Why did you not mention in the examples the initial cost of "those" armored monsters - according to the same purchasing power index, now you would have calculated the approximate cost of an armored / unarmored hull.
    2. Of course, I’m a new person here, but as I understand it, you definitely don’t want to notice that the conditions of use and tasks of the modern fleet have changed - now this is essentially a sea-based PRO-PVO-RVSN and this explains their modern look - this is no more than floating bases.
    Accordingly, the question - where are the articles about the strategy and tactics of using armored monsters in modern conditions - what will they do?
    1. tasha
      tasha 16 November 2015 15: 18
      +3
      Approximately. If we take as a basis the cost of an ounce of gold, then it took about 100 million dollars at the price per ounce of 35 $ to build Iowa LC. Now gold is worth 1100-1200 $ per ounce, an increase of 30 times. Those. the estimated cost of such a LC is now 3-3,5 billion.
      If we take the price of oil as a basis, then the Inflation Data site in current dollars displays the price of 1946 in 1,63year, and in 2014 - 85,66 i.e. growth in 50 times.

      Destroyer class "Fletcher" in 1942 cost 10-11 million. Cruiser "Cleveland" - the official price of 31 million. AB "Enterprise" about 20 mln.

      In the book by A.P. Shershov "To the history of military shipbuilding" 1952. provided data on the specific gravity of the ship's elements. For example, for LC
      Enclosure with systems and team - 30-32%
      Booking - 38-41%
      Armament - 14-18%
      Gears - 7-10%
      Supply 2-3%
      Fuel 6-9%

      The same numbers for cruisers

      Enclosure with systems and team - 32-35%
      Booking - 7-15%
      Armament - 8-14%
      Gears - 20-27%
      Supply 2-3%
      Fuel 13-16%

      Destroyers
      Case - 35-38%
      Booking - 0
      Armament 8-12%
      9-15% mechanisms
      Fuel 4-6%


      The table shows that the largest percentage falls on the weight of the hull, in addition, on reservations (for battleships) and on mechanisms (for cruisers, destroyers and submarines). To lighten these parts of the ship without introducing damage to its quality, new light metals, plastics, electric-welded structures, etc. are introduced. In order to avoid overload that adversely affects the propulsion and unsinkability of the ship, an increase against the draft of one of the load items should be compensated by the same decrease in the other any article.

      The weight of the Aegis Baseline 7 system components is about 700 tons. Price - 1,5bn + - depending on the configuration.
      1. tasha
        tasha 16 November 2015 16: 16
        0
        Correction: the destroyers share of mechanisms: 35-40%, fuel: 16-19% weapons 6-8%
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 November 2015 21: 16
        +1
        So normal people understand this that within a given displacement, size and cost, there is a certain balance in which the improvement of some characteristics leads to the deterioration of others. This is an axiom! But for some upstart authors, this is still not the case. Foaming at the mouth, they prove that if you bang 2000 tons of armor on the Orly Burke, it will be a super ship! And "Zamvolt" is even cooler if you bang even more armor there! laughing
      3. Kvazar
        Kvazar 16 November 2015 21: 18
        +1
        That's right, they just replace Kevlar, plastic and other steel and aluminum. Because to protect against modern threats, it is necessary to increase the displacement, and everything else went there. As a result, the battleship of Iowa is so blundered for the price ..... the battleship will come out to you like an aircraft carrier under 20 lard bachels with weapons .... it also needs a meadow that is not free, plus space grouping plus an aircraft carrier cover plus a nuclear submarine to him or even two three .... You are lucky if you leave at 80-90 lard for one group (2linkor one aircraft carrier cover group) and this is only for the ship component, development and maintenance for 50 years will cost 50 times 100 more expensive .... But these groups need at least 5 .... the navel will burst .... because replace once every 15 years 4000 missiles on the meadow plus replace once 100 aircraft + missiles to them, well, you understand how many babos ....
  • realist
    realist 16 November 2015 13: 54
    +4
    a decision on the arming of a warship should be worked out by specialists on the basis of operational experience, combat employment, and advanced developments of electronic warfare weapons and equipment. in general, we can emotionally take part in the discussion, but I am a military builder and do not know everything about naval experience. therefore, it is difficult for me to judge who is right and who is not, but the truth seems to me in the middle! Yes, some of the rooms need to be booked, yes, it is necessary to rationally compose the internal volume, maybe it is worth building a building (longitudinal and transverse set) with excess thickness? in general, the topic is interesting. and on the armored boat Oleg must be thrown off :)
  • IAlex
    IAlex 16 November 2015 14: 17
    +2
    150 mm of armor against 400 kg of trinitratoluene in torpedoes and rockets is the same as paper against a knife. There is no point in booking, except from small shells of 30 mm. and less fragments ...
  • dumkopff
    dumkopff 16 November 2015 15: 54
    +6
    I am sorry that a lot. Tired of cutting. I must say right away: all arguments are absolutely amateurish.

    The opinion that it is worth returning the armor to ships is found in publications of 20 years ago. Moreover, in extreme terms, it is supposed to return not just armor, but armor providing absolute protection against modern weapons (with the exception of nuclear weapons).
    The heaviest production tank of World War II, the Royal Tiger had a reservation of 150 mm — the forehead of the hull and 185 mm — the forehead of the tower. Its mass was 68 tons. Modern MBTs, having a comparable mass (except for MBTs designed as part of the Soviet school), have a frontal armor equivalent to 850-900 mm of homogeneous steel. Reservation of the heaviest of the battleships, the Japanese Yamato, was 410 mm - armor belt, traverse -300 mm, 200-220 main deck, 25-50 mm upper deck, GK barbets - up to 560 mm (Towers are deliberately excluded from consideration, since on modern ships, such a design is not used).
    By performing the simplest extrapolation, we get the following: with a displacement of 72000 tons, a modern ship in any important place can have armor equivalent to from 1200 to 3300 mm of homogeneous steel. It is supposedly impossible to penetrate such armor with any of the ammunition available in the armament (except for nuclear weapons).
    Modern anti-ship missiles are characterized by the mass of the warhead from 165 to 520 kg. The mass of the shell of the GK guns for the battleships of World War II ranged from 850 to 1460 kg. In this case, directly to the explosive accounted for “only” tens of kilograms. For example, an armor-piercing projectile for the Yamato guns contained 33 kg of TNA. The rest of the weight, roughly speaking, was to ensure penetration of the armor. Rocket flight speed is up to 2,5M (which approximately corresponds to the flight speed of ship’s shells from the period of the Second World War).
    Thus: if a modern anti-ship missile is sharpened under armor penetration, then there will be no mass reserves for explosives. The after-effects of such ammunition will be minimal. In the case of a tank, penetration is often equivalent to incapacitation, since the entire crew is in the same volume, and often with them the ammunition is in the same volume. In the case of a ship, breaking through in one place, without a subsequent explosion, has practically no consequences. If you leave everything as it is, then the missiles will be pointless to fight against the armor. The use of cumulative and sub-caliber ammunition to ensure penetration beyond the armor is expected to be complicated. Firstly, it’s easy to use a diversity booking system and anti-cumulative screens (against cumulative ammunition) on a ship. Secondly, both options will require a significant lengthening of the warhead (in the case of cumulative ammunition - in order to apply the tandem scheme).
    Such a line of reasoning should delight amateurs (led me), but ...
    1. dumkopff
      dumkopff 16 November 2015 15: 56
      +7
      The following objections arise:
      1. Extrapolation is a very dangerous method. If by a similar method to predict the growth of a child on the basis of data for a period from 5 to 10 years, then we get the growth of a 50 year old person under 4-5 meters. And therefore, it is safe to say that where there used to be 400 mm of armor, now there will be the equivalent of 2 meters of homogeneous steel only specialists can (and may not say so).
      2. Modern concrete bombs are able to open 15 meters of soil and fall into fortified bunkers. It can be assumed that it is quite realistic to create the RCC warhead weighing up to 500 kg, providing both armor penetration and a powerful explosion after penetration.
      3. Suppose the use of armor will slightly increase the cost of the ship by 15-20%. What will happen to operating costs? Will they grow up? If they grow similarly, then the number of fleets will decrease by 15-20% within the same budgetary constraints.
      There is a funny situation. The experience of recent decades shows that wars are waged against obviously weaker opponents. If a developed country with a fleet mates with someone capable of resisting, then the matter will quickly be reduced to the use of nuclear weapons. And all the armor will become useless (even if the ship does not sink, then the EMR will burn the filling). If you fight against those who are not able to resist, then armor is not needed. All the same, the enemy does not have the ability to overcome the many lines of defense of the ship. Therefore, it is more profitable to have 60 flimsy ships, instead of 50 armored ones. This allows you to cover a large territory with control, create a more dense network of PLO / air defense / missile defense, and respond more quickly to mini-threats that arise in a particular place.
      The above can be summarized as follows: but hell knows how best.
      PS Still, you have to stick the PTZ in!
      1. common man
        common man 16 November 2015 18: 14
        +4
        Quote: dumkopff
        The experience of recent decades shows that wars are waged against obviously weaker opponents. If a developed country with a fleet mates with someone capable of resisting, then the matter will quickly be reduced to the use of nuclear weapons.

        1.China-Vietnam War (1979). China already had nuclear weapons at that time. Vietnam is not known to be weak.
        2. Israel is a nuclear power. Fights for a long time and hard. Are Arabs obviously weak?
        3. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Teasing with India for a long time and seriously.
        4. North Korea. Generally scumbag, which all in one place.
        Why didn't they use nuclear weapons in their conflicts? I would not throw the threat of nuclear weapons use so easily. The local use of nuclear weapons puts the country that used it in the position of an outcast. She will be pecked "not by washing, so by rolling". The global use of nuclear weapons puts on the brink of destruction not only your enemy, but the entire WORLD, including its own people. In order to decide on this, "well, very weighty arguments" are needed.
        It is necessary to prepare for a war of conventional weapons and not rely on "Kuzka's mother."
        1. Assistant
          Assistant 17 November 2015 23: 35
          0
          1. Such Chinese considered Vietnam to be deliberately weak. Enchantingly miscalculated, instead of a small victorious war, they firmly sat down in the zone of the first offensive. When, a couple of months later, the USSR concentrated its forces for a dash into Inner Mongolia, comparable to the operation against the Kwantung Army 35 years ago, China said "I didn't really want to" and quickly dumped.
          2. Compared to the historical homeland and the SGA standing behind it - yes. Of course, there are strong states in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, but they are also under transatlantic control.
          3. However, since 1971 officially the state of war between them has not been declared even once.
          4. "Will you start it up? This is THIS? Does it even fly? In my opinion, it doesn't even crawl." (from)
      2. Kvazar
        Kvazar 16 November 2015 18: 36
        +3
        1. Modern armor steel surpasses the old steel of the Second World War by almost 3! times. True, they are "a bit" more expensive. Here we must look that the means of destruction also did not stand still and the threats are quite significant.
        2. It will not work. The mass of explosives will be instead of 300 kg, about 20 kg, the effect of the gap will be completely different. Here either go or checkers. But all this relates to ships with a displacement of 20.000 tons. And they are suddenly booked. All the rest have ballistic reservations (on arly about 450 tons of which 130 is Kevlar)
        3. It will increase by about 3 lyam per ton of reservation (2000t = 6 lard rubles). All this can be multiplied by 3 in the easy (just so all this stuff can’t be welded). Yes, the cost of operation will be much higher. Because displacement will have to be increased with the same weapons.
        4. SBN need to get almost into the ship to drown it. There is more of a problem in another, after 2 days the crew will die out from exposure (all).
        5. Missile strike without UBC is how? Weak adversary? If a boat sank from a single missile hit, this is a disaster in the literal sense of the word given the cost and production cycle.
        6. In peacetime, it’s more profitable for a fleet that will never fight. For those who have such chances, it is better to have armored ships, which is what everyone does.

        In general, the problem here is rather strange. It comes from problems when the air defense of the ship was not responsible for its survival.
        What we have at the moment. RCC mass type with 90-300kg of explosives in the warhead of the semi-penetrating type. To counter this charm, you need quite thick armor. At the same time, spread it, put ds from precharges (which means the thickness of the first layer should be 100-150 mm at least) special filler (reflective sheets for example), back sheet, and other perversions. To make it all work, the thickness should not be 50mm. Plus, the redesign of the decks of the cellars of the launch cells, well, I went around in a circle + PTZ. As a result, for all this to work as it should, it increases sharply for you:
        1. Displacement x2 immediately at least
        2. Price of construction
        3. Construction time
        4. The cost of operation
        5. A new basing infrastructure is needed for such monsters.

        But in reality it is useless to reserve a ship with a displacement of less than 20.000 tons at this stage, it will not save. Therefore, booked areas and anti-shatter.
        And they don’t build something bigger because no money.
  • alovrov
    alovrov 16 November 2015 17: 25
    0
    Accordingly, the question - where are the articles about the strategy and tactics of using armored monsters in modern conditions - what will they do?


    This question has already been asked. The answer was that armored monsters would be able to enter zones where any other ship would die immediately. The question - why go into such zones remained unanswered.
  • mvg
    mvg 16 November 2015 17: 45
    +5
    I will make my 5 cents. The persistence of the author of the articles is simply amazing. He understands the subject matter (well, it's like defending your dissertation in front of students, I don’t see anything complicated).
    Don't understand a few things? If there are already naval battles, then the armor will not save, neither from the first strike, nor from the retaliatory one. (someone correctly spoke about "winter and zombies").
    If you defend yourself against attacks by "terrorists", as in the case of the Persian Gulf, with a boat with 200-300 kg of dynamite and a Burke or a variant of the Lebanese (Chinese anti-ship missile) against Jews, then it is cheaper just not to sleep. The ship's air defense must cope with single anti-ship missiles. A salvo of Granites, Basalts, Onyxes, Gauges, Harpoons, Gabriels, Exocets, etc. (as well as Pershing wink , Mace, Topol, Yars, Trident, Minuteman, DF, etc.) means the 3rd World War, without winners. No one will fight with anyone, seriously. It is simply a demonstration of strength, the development of R&D and industry.
    If the armor is so needed, why do not the richest Japan and South Korea make it on their super-destroyers? The Japanese ALWAYS loved all the same. And the life of a samurai was valued very dearly. At the same time, there are technologies and shipyards both there and there. We do not consider poor Europeans, although Horizons, LaFaeta are no worse in technology than Deringa and Burke.

    PS: The author did not say, in my opinion, the main thing is WHY? The point of using superfafle in combat? She will do the "weather"? Or force the adversaries' design bureau to work on an armor-piercing anti-ship missile warhead urgently? The deeper into the ground, the thicker the concrete-piercing bomb. Harpoon will have a warhead with a tactical battleground, that's all. In a 220 kg warhead, 20-30 kt will easily "fit".
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 16 November 2015 20: 37
      0
      Yes book. It’s just that the destroyers have grown to the size of a light cruiser .... the light cruisers are already close to the cruisers (Peter the Great), and the rocket launcher will be 140-160 thousand tons too expensive a toy. From this and the level of booking they have different. It is not possible to book a ship of such a water displacement from the surface that would not break through. displacement is not enough. Therefore, they book against fragments and close gaps. All that the largest carries armor as sorry and zvizdets how expensive. But here there is such a haemorrhage as babosy and technology (starting from shipyards and steel armor, the difference in stability armor can reach 2 TIMES at one thickness) ending with the filling, without air defense it is hollowing at 400 km this is not a ship, but an expensive iron in a bucket. So even if you look at the destroyer its price is ALREADY TWO lard bachey per boat. A cruiser from zero will come out with a dozen lards, a battleship aircraft carrier 20 lards per unit, another 10 to the home port ..... That is, countries either do not have technology, or .... there is no money for such toys. The fleet has always been a VERY expensive toy, now only a few can afford it, and therefore they do not build a cruiser for the mosquito fleet. There was almost a hundred years ago the idea of ​​ultimate battleships .... so now they have reached it. Imagine that the Russian Federation built ten missile battleships, having swum 200 lard bachs there to base another 100, to cover a hundred more .... and another 300 to cover ships ... So you can swell .... now keep weight loss desks .. .. it’s 12 regions that can be rebuilt from scratch ... or 12 Olympiads can be held, and taking into account the content of this fleet, they’ll tear down the Olympiads for 25 years ..... not compatible .... Therefore, they build a mosquito fleet with a long arm and book as can him, Kevlar plastic steel .....
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 17 November 2015 00: 13
        0
        Peter the Great is a TAKR (heavy atomic cruiser) And again, for those who are in a tank, modern destruction systems almost completely devalue the ship’s armor protection.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 17 November 2015 11: 07
          +1
          Yeah, the cruiser with a displacement of almost 26.000 +))) In general, in NATO countries they consider him a battlecruiser here, but I admit I was mistaken.

          What modern tools are these? Air defense? Oh well. Nothing that air defense just now brought to the state of the possibility of working on AWACS aircraft? And they have not yet implemented it.

          For those who are in the tank. Book as they can. Modern systems of defeat are too strong. Therefore, aluminum-magnesium alloys go to Kevlar. Strengthen the steel alloys of the body itself. For another, there is no displacement. Peter was supposed to carry a belt onboard armor; there wasn’t enough displacement; he had to locally book.

          Nimets carries 150mm of armor. Kuzya is also armored +)
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 16 November 2015 21: 28
      +1
      Quote: mvg
      The author did not say, in my opinion, the main thing, WHY?

      THEN to increase combat stability. Example? Cruiser WWII Americans !!! Only in this way, according to the author, and nothing else wink I have already noticed that many adequate solutions to the problem (or explanation) are simply ignored. You just need to participate in a blunt transfusion from empty to empty. At the same time, do not forget more alphanumeric phrases and photos with the torn off noses of ships for proof!
      And the answer will be one - the ship SHOULD use the entire ammunition, and the armor should give it a couple more minutes for the crew to be saved. In this case, anti-ship missiles (bombs, shells) must necessarily fall into the armor, otherwise it will become useless weight.
      But it’s easier to say - some just hung on nostalgia for the good old battles ... And they project this onto modern ships. only the means of destruction became much more perverted compared to shells and you need to deal with them no longer through reservations, but to prevent such carriers from getting into the ship hi
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 16 November 2015 18: 07
    +6
    Surface warships are developing in the following
    directions:
    1) notice the enemy before.
    funds: AWACS aircraft, helicopters, radars.
    2) shoot from a maximum distance.
    means: attack aircraft, cruise missiles.
    3) try to remain inconspicuous by yourself.
    Means: stealth form and coatings.
    4) reduction in size with increasing
    long-range weapons (CR) and air defense
    (missile frigates, small missile ships).

    The best way to ensure survivability: air defense, missile defense
    and their submarines escort.
    1. mvg
      mvg 16 November 2015 18: 40
      0

      3) try to remain inconspicuous by yourself.
      Means: stealth form and coatings.

      There is another option to make an "impenetrable" sphere, as in the case of AUG.
      In this case, just all the other paragraphs will be executed. AWACS, KR, strike aircraft, powerful radars (you cannot put on a 2000-ton Idigu frigate), air defense, submarines, etc., except for size and money.

      At the same time, AUG is just as well defended as it is attacking. Even 20-30 frigates will not go on the attack on the AUG, and she has practically no chance to defend herself. With the most advanced air defense (and the zonal air defense, which turns the frigate into a destroyer, cannot be placed on this warrant).
      There is one question left !!! Only one. Where to get the loot! request
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 16 November 2015 18: 38
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Is the power on the propeller shafts the same?


    So what?
  • RONIN-HS
    RONIN-HS 16 November 2015 18: 47
    -2
    The article is correct, the topic is considered by the author and opponents at a fairly acceptable level of modeling. options clashes of a future war. Here the number of variables tends to infinity. How "it will be ..." - a HZ...! But the topic is very interesting.
    1. I want to make my 5 cents ... laughing The reason IMHO, is that CUSTOMER (acting admirals) ALWAYS prepare for the past war or to virtualmeeting the conditions of prosperity personal status and track record. Moreover, often even unconsciously.
    Like, what's the problem? To listen to the reasoning of some engineer (with the shoulder straps of senior lieutenant of the reserve) - they say, you will first serve with mine, e-mine ..! And then argue! In short normal discussion sketch we had no design, no - and it looks like it will not.
    Gold customer outweighs all reasonable arguments.
    2. Especially important, when considering the reservation task crew survival. And here even the humanistic drooling is not important, about the pricelessness of human life, but pragmatic argument - saving 1000 people specially trained, already trained warriors. They just need to grow from scratch about 25 - 30 years, plus 2 - 5 years of special training. Once, the shortage of pilots of the air groups brought Japan to its knees, in the presence of aircraft carriers. Moreover, here again we need a reserve for the replacement of l \ composition.
    3. Author - Respect and Respect! good Without your articles, Oleg, our site would have turned pale by about 25% of the "word-displacement", me kaeetsa ...! Well done. Keep it up! soldier
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 16 November 2015 23: 24
      0
      Based on the pace of development of active defense equipment and electronic warfare equipment, it will soon be possible to get into a protected target only with a simple blank with a contact fuse, perhaps we will see battleships.
  • albanian
    albanian 16 November 2015 18: 53
    0
    But do modern PCRs not have the ability to replace the standard b.ch. on special ?
    It is much more profitable economically and in most other ways than designing new missiles, etc. things when "armored ships" appear.
    The benefit of nuclear charges of tactical capacities is not small, including for the needs of the fleet.
    And it’s just strange to hear about the inability of the PCR to disable the ship. After all, any damage (even not significant) to guidance systems, launch and control systems lead to a strong decrease in the combat effectiveness of the ship, to the flesh to zero. What is the use of a trough that cannot fulfill its combat missions? To save the crew, boats and other means are usually used, and ships whose damage is relatively large, it is cheaper to write off the scrap than restore.
  • brn521
    brn521 16 November 2015 19: 01
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    TKR "Haguro" (1925), 36 knots (~ 70 km / h), modern destroyers never dreamed of this

    According to your old articles, I got the impression that modern destroyers are much less noisy (for some reason now it has become very important). Eat less fuel at full speed. Less dependent on weather conditions - As a result, even cruisers began to build with contours for destroyers. Less likely to break (GEM is serviced only at the bases). They have a much smaller team (according to Wikipedia, most of the cost of operating a destroyer is the salary of the team).
    Now, we decided to close the destroyer with armor. As far as I understand, it is most advantageous to book a sphere. It is not beneficial to book a narrow spindle. By graduation, the following conditionally obtained in the direction of reducing the profitability of the reservation are obtained. Battleship-linear cruiser-cruiser-destroyer. But the destroyers have the highest Froude number. In this line, it is gradually increasing, and among destroyers it is conditionally twice as large as that of battleships. This implies that at high speeds, the conventional destroyer will burn much less fuel per ton of displacement than the conventional battleship.
    Another question is why these ships are needed. I suspect that, first of all, not for conducting hostilities, but for keeping watch. As a result, low cost of operation and autonomy are important. With these layouts, destroyers win. And the armor, especially such as on "Haguro" (about 2 thousand tons out of 11, it seems), is not at all in the subject. Additional mass - an increase in the surface of the underwater part of the hull - an increase in resistance - an increase in the mass of the power plant and fuel reserves. Also, high speed, combined with economy, will help light ships reach the desired points faster in the event of the start of hostilities. I saw above the opinion that a missile carrier can afford to be a turtle. I do not agree here. It is clear to any military man that troop mobility is very important. If only because it allows you to create a significant superiority in a certain area of ​​the combat zone before the enemy can react and regroup.
  • moreman78
    moreman78 16 November 2015 21: 30
    +1
    How much can you write this nonsense!
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 16 November 2015 21: 35
    +2
    I believe that the designers of domestic ships do not read the next fabrications of the author of the article, and you can be calm for optimizing the design of future ships, depending on the tasks they solve for combat mission. The author, taking up such an article even from the Internet, would have gained elementary knowledge on the theory of the ship, and then would have written about something. In particular, such a mistake that the power of a power plant weakly correlates with the displacement of the ship. Questions to the author of the article: does the correlation coefficient equal to him? But what about the Admiralty coefficient? It was also fun to read the dispute between the amateur Oleg Kaptsov and the certified specialist Nikita Dmitriev, to whom my respect.
  • theone
    theone 16 November 2015 22: 09
    +2
    The answers to the questions posed in the article lie not so much in the field of technology, but rather in the field of economics and finance.
    It is necessary to take into account not only the increased cost of building ships with reservation elements, but also the correspondingly increased cost of operation during the entire life of the ship, which is tens of years and, accordingly, spills a lot of extra penny. And how much will it cost for the entire fleet? The question is not idle.
    Moreover, certain aspects of understanding by the country's top political leadership of the economic issues of military construction must be taken into account.
    In fact, we have a product (warship) that was created and exists for two aspects - effective non-combat deterrence / military service and combat as such.
    Over the past 80 years, the vast majority of warships have never participated in real hostilities, but they have been in combat duty for decades.

    That is why the economic efficiency of the ship over its entire service life is at the forefront to the detriment of those qualities that significantly increase its combat stability, but at the same time place an additional economic burden on the country's economy.

    As an analogy to such economic efficiency, we can recall the difference in the buoyancy margin of our two-hull and American single-hull submarines, which amounted to 20%. At the same time, the combat stability of our two-hull submarines with holes in a strong hull is naturally higher, but this imposes the need for decades to carry an additional considerable amount of ballast during combat duty.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 November 2015 22: 46
      0
      Quote: theone
      with booking elements, but also correspondingly increased operating costs

      Do steel plates need to give rations and pay s / n?
  • mvg
    mvg 16 November 2015 23: 10
    +1
    Oleg, I was just thinking .. And you are probably right .. As soon as Russia puts in the "Invincible", and even, first, publicizing it .. How does the rest of the world (as you said there that destroyers are building 5- 6 countries, though not including Korea in this list, and there are the strongest EMs) immediately begins to feverishly re-equip their navies in case of an open meeting with our miracle suitcase. They spend their military budgets, suffer economically and emotionally (mentally), suffer social programs (for the sake of increasing the military budget), overstrain .. And then we ONCE ... and curtail construction ... as happened more than once .. explaining that " joked ".. And that's all, and here is our" answer to Chamberlain "for losing the Cold War ..
    PS: I didn’t immediately clear your thoughts .. good
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 November 2015 23: 13
      +2
      Quote: mvg
      As the rest of the world was right there (as you said there, destroyers are building 5-6 countries, though not including Korea in the list, and there are the strongest EMs), it immediately starts feverishly re-equipping its Navy in case

      It was precisely in this that the Japanese and Yamato were mistaken when their characteristics were too classified.
      1. mvg
        mvg 17 November 2015 00: 14
        0
        Partially agree with you about the Japanese and Yamato.
        It is unlikely that then the South Dakota would have acted so boldly. Yes, and launching under construction LK and LKr would be delayed until the appearance of 460 mm guns and towers under them. And redesigning and making changes is a long and expensive affair. But ... not for the American economy at that time ... And nobody canceled the asymmetric measures. Aviation, submarine, numerical superiority.

        I do not really believe that the construction of such a ship and its performance characteristics can be kept in secret. Especially Musashi and Shinano (like) of the same type. You can buy a couple of workers / engineers.
        True, these vessels were uselessly useless .. A pity. Could pat, besides nerves, also pants from the USA.
        PS: Oleg .. Oleg, it would be interesting to read a hypothetical battle, between 2, 3 orders of ships in modern combat. Or the fight to destroy Zamwolt. Plus coastal aviation. Topic for an article, since the "Rurik" people don't like the armor topic ..
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 November 2015 01: 05
          +1
          Quote: mvg
          I do not really believe that the construction of such a ship and its performance characteristics can be kept in secret

          Unfortunately for the fact that the Americans knew that Yamato was very different.
          Quote: mvg
          But ... not for the American economy at the time ...

          Well, at least something, in the battle of Yamato with musashi, and especially Shinano did not mark.
  • mvg
    mvg 16 November 2015 23: 21
    +2

    It was also fun to read the dispute between the amateur Oleg Kaptsov and the certified specialist Nikita Dmitriev, to whom my respect.

    Forgive me for interfering .. But it is difficult to call Oleg someone who is an amateur. It's even inconvenient. Is the constructor 2 cat a panacea? Does he know everything, or is he just responsible for designing some narrow specialization? He's just not a dilettante, he probably finished "karabelka", works in his specialty, that's all ..
    And Oleg is a fan, also has a tower, or even 2 .. techie .. He will come to the Baltzavod and in a couple of months will do the same work as Dmitry (he didn’t want to offend Dmitry). Easy and laid back. Such an experience in life is simple.
    This is not the main or leading designer of the design bureau (and there are no irreplaceable ones there).
    Just think out loud.
  • Sem Faraday
    Sem Faraday 17 November 2015 00: 18
    +1
    From an economic point of view, the author of the article is probably right. If we consider for example, not a new destroyer received one or two missiles in the side. What will happen to him? Most likely he will not drown and will be brought to the base, but there will be no sense in restoring it. The case can be repaired, but the burned and seawater-filled electronics, and still not new, are not advisable. So it turns out $ 2 billion to the tail. It is still possible to change the ship's architecture by introducing a large number of armored compartments for both electronics and CIUs, using duplication and redundancy more. Then the destroyer will have more chances under the impact of missiles to complete the last task and save more crew.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 17 November 2015 16: 33
      0
      You don’t have to book everything. The engine room and the cellar with ammunition are enough.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 17 November 2015 00: 25
    0
    Guys, you understand, the times of the battleships have irrevocably gone. That protection, which used to be assigned to armor, in modern conditions rests on detection systems and firing stations, various kinds of active and passive jammers. And about amateurism, the author is an absolute amateur, Wikipedia calculations, his thoughts. The author never attended a warship, never went to sea at sea, and he will never be able to fully replace the designer of category 2. Elementary, there is no basic knowledge.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 17 November 2015 00: 31
    +2
    Dear mvg! What makes the layman different from the expert? The amateur talks a lot and juggles the terms in which. as it appears. does not understand. The specialist is distinguished by laconic speech and, surprisingly, he expresses more doubts in some kind of technical dispute. than peremptory technical statements of the amateur. Because the layman knows everything, the specialist knows what he was taught + self-education based on the knowledge gained and work practice. I personally have nothing against the articles of Oleg Kaptsov. He has his own audience and a flag in his hands. But I personally do not see the "techie" in his articles, since he is a techie himself. Everything is somehow at the top, albeit with fanaticism.
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 November 2015 01: 11
      +1
      Quote: okroshka79
      The specialist is distinguished by laconicism and, surprisingly, he is more

      That’s why they told why the Tiger 1 has vertical reservation)) or how the specialists turned out to be a King tiger.
      And so many more examples from the ships of the same Ticonderoga in which the hull burst due to overload,
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 19 November 2015 12: 31
        0
        Kars, and let me take you to the missile theme? What is the chemical composition of the fuel of the rocket on which Yuri Gagarin flew? You do not know? A shame...
        1. Santa Fe
          19 November 2015 23: 28
          0
          Quote: Andrey77
          What is the chemical composition of the rocket’s fuel

          vskidku - liquid components
          fuel + oxidizer

          everything else can now be walked in three seconds. What was previously memorized and dug for hours in books. Distance free education for all, huh

          Kars, by the way, is a chemist. He knows about oxidation, catalysts and inhibitors.
    2. Santa Fe
      17 November 2015 02: 59
      0
      Quote: okroshka79
      What distinguishes an amateur from a specialist?

  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 17 November 2015 04: 01
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: okroshka79
    What distinguishes an amateur from a specialist?


    But this is complete amateurism. I don’t know the TTX of the ark, but the Titanic, having received a hole of about 50 meters in length, kept afloat for quite some time. And the designer teams do not insure against errors.
  • tasha
    tasha 17 November 2015 08: 19
    +1
    As an interesting fact. When after the war they tried to install the Talos PB system on a Cleveland-type cruiser, even after removing all the turrets and anti-aircraft weapons (except the front ones), stability problems started. Because of what I had to load the ballast about 500t. I can not vouch for accuracy, but it seems to be so.

    And a little conspiracy theme. What is the reason for such an increase in the displacement of the "Zamvolt" compared to "Arleigh Burke"? Here is a topic for a persistent author to research. I can assume that energy storage devices are of considerable weight. (up to 75% of the power of the power plant goes to the reserve, depending on the mode of travel). The question is, why is this energy accumulated? Will SOMETHING come out of the superstructure later? And all our disputes about booking ...
  • looker-on
    looker-on 17 November 2015 09: 09
    0
    [quote = Setrac] 1 There is a nuclear weapon all the armor do not care.
    2 There are torpedoes.

    1-trial on the Bikini Atoll says something else (read)

    2-torpedo still need to be released. Those go 10km to the goal
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 17 November 2015 10: 47
    0
    Many modern rockets make a slide and hit a ship from above. In this regard, it is not very clear how to cover the radar equipment with armor, without which the ship, as a combat unit, loses all value.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 17 November 2015 16: 30
      +1
      The question is correct. Without a mast radar, this is no longer a ship.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 November 2015 11: 01
    +1
    Plus, I agree with Oleg, I need armor on the ship, and large and especially valuable units have always been booked in the modern fleet. Well, the fact that any armor can be pierced and destroyed by anything is true, only what conclusions can we draw from this? Why did they remove the armor from the ships (almost all)? Because of nuclear weapons, a nuclear war hasn’t happened yet, and the ships are sailing naked, everyone is counting on a nuclear strike). All the same bombs and shells fly, torpedoes float, more terrorist attacks were added and there is no war with the use of nuclear weapons. What has changed by and large compared with the beginning - the middle of the 20th century (for example)? Increased accuracy? Proportionately increased electronic means to reduce this accuracy. The speeds are the same, the rocket is not faster than the projectile, the ships float at the same speed of 30+ knots. And before shells hit above the armored belt, what next? Stupid ancestors refused armor? After all, the projectile will fall higher, at close range, with a large angle of incidence, so we can remove the armor, hz why doesn’t she save it from anything ... Ask who the question was so year in 1930 to some Japanese (or some other) designer, he would twist a finger at his temple, and he could cut a katana as a clear pest to the Japanese fleet laughing It’s just that people fought ship against ship more often and knew more about life and the death and psychology of man in battle.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 17 November 2015 13: 54
      0
      Quote: barbiturate
      Why did they remove the armor from the ships (almost all)?

      They did not clean it. On ships of the frigate-destroyer class it was never there (only local splinterproof reservation on separate copies).
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 19 November 2015 12: 19
      0
      Because of nuclear weapons
      --
      The answer is incorrect. Due to the radar mast + ballast extended up to maintain metacentric stability. We exchanged armor for electronics and radars. It seems to have been discussed.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 17 November 2015 12: 37
    0
    Quote: barbiturate
    Plus, I agree with Oleg, I need armor on the ship, and large and especially valuable units have always been booked in the modern fleet. Well, the fact that any armor can be pierced and destroyed by anything is true, only what conclusions can we draw from this? Why did they remove the armor from the ships (almost all)? Because of nuclear weapons, a nuclear war hasn’t happened yet, and the ships are sailing naked, everyone is counting on a nuclear strike). All the same bombs and shells fly, torpedoes float, more terrorist attacks were added and there is no war with the use of nuclear weapons. What has changed by and large compared with the beginning - the middle of the 20th century (for example)? Increased accuracy? Proportionately increased electronic means to reduce this accuracy. The speeds are the same, the rocket is not faster than the projectile, the ships float at the same speed of 30+ knots. And before shells hit above the armored belt, what next? Stupid ancestors refused armor? After all, the projectile will fall higher, at close range, with a large angle of incidence, so we can remove the armor, hz why doesn’t she save it from anything ... Ask who the question was so year in 1930 to some Japanese (or some other) designer, he would twist a finger at his temple, and he could cut a katana as a clear pest to the Japanese fleet laughing It’s just that people fought ship against ship more often and knew more about life and the death and psychology of man in battle.

    If you are far from the fleet .... now it’s not 1930. And the value of armor began to decline due to the appearance of aircraft carriers, the torpedo carrier had an armored belt on the drum, at least 5 meters, rocket weapons picked up the baton.
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 17 November 2015 14: 18
      +3
      Torpedo bombers can sink large surface targets, but I was not talking about the confrontation of armored ships against torpedo bombers, everything should be harmoniously developed and interaction should be established, but an armored ship has much greater combat stability. The designers always understood this, besides, you don’t have to be very smart to understand that the armor penetration of missiles was MUCH lower than large-caliber AP shells, they simply didn’t allow ships to be armored in the atomic age, but the designers were exhausted as best they could, but the armor was for the largest and most important units all the same, they dragged the fleet.

      "The cruiser" Kirov "became the first strike ship after the Second World War, the design of which provided for a sufficiently developed reservation. Engine rooms, reactor compartments and missile cellars of the" Granit "and" Metel "complexes are protected from the sides of 100-mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) and from the side of the deck with 70-mm armor.We also received armor protection for the premises of the main command post and the combat information post of the ship, which are located inside the cruiser hull at the waterline level: they were covered with 100-mm side walls with 75-mm traverses and a roof. In addition, in the stern there is armor on the sides (70-mm) and on the roof (50-mm) of the helicopter hangar, as well as around the storage of aviation fuel and ammunition; local armor cover is also located above the tiller compartments. Armor protection is also equipped with artillery installations and their cellars ammunition. "
      From combat damage, the cruiser protects the double bottom throughout the hull, anti-torpedo protection, as well as local armor protection of vital parts of the ship. There is no belt armor, as such, on cruisers of the Kirov type - armor protection is located in the depths of the hull - but along the waterline from bow to stern there is a thickened skinning belt 3,5 m high (2,5 m above the waterline and 1 m below it) ), which plays an important role in the constructive protection of the ship.

      Tell the designers how wrong they were, how much their knowledge is less than yours, how these crazy people in a clearly drunk (maybe narcotic?) Delirium thought about the benefits (the main thing is not a list of laughs, attention!)) 100mm !!!! armor, and already 50mm ... laughing
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 17 November 2015 15: 29
    +1
    Quote: barbiturate
    Torpedo bombers can sink large surface targets, but I was not talking about the confrontation of armored ships against torpedo bombers, everything should be harmoniously developed and interaction should be established, but an armored ship has much greater combat stability. The designers always understood this, besides, you don’t have to be very smart to understand that the armor penetration of missiles was MUCH lower than large-caliber AP shells, they simply didn’t allow ships to be armored in the atomic age, but the designers were exhausted as best they could, but the armor was for the largest and most important units all the same, they dragged the fleet.

    "The cruiser" Kirov "became the first strike ship after the Second World War, the design of which provided for a sufficiently developed reservation. Engine rooms, reactor compartments and missile cellars of the" Granit "and" Metel "complexes are protected from the sides of 100-mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) and from the side of the deck with 70-mm armor.We also received armor protection for the premises of the main command post and the combat information post of the ship, which are located inside the cruiser hull at the waterline level: they were covered with 100-mm side walls with 75-mm traverses and a roof. In addition, in the stern there is armor on the sides (70-mm) and on the roof (50-mm) of the helicopter hangar, as well as around the storage of aviation fuel and ammunition; local armor cover is also located above the tiller compartments. Armor protection is also equipped with artillery installations and their cellars ammunition. "
    From combat damage, the cruiser protects the double bottom throughout the hull, anti-torpedo protection, as well as local armor protection of vital parts of the ship. There is no belt armor, as such, on cruisers of the Kirov type - armor protection is located in the depths of the hull - but along the waterline from bow to stern there is a thickened skinning belt 3,5 m high (2,5 m above the waterline and 1 m below it) ), which plays an important role in the constructive protection of the ship.

    Tell the designers how wrong they were, how much their knowledge is less than yours, how these crazy people in a clearly drunk (maybe narcotic?) Delirium thought about the benefits (the main thing is not a list of laughs, attention!)) 100mm !!!! armor, and already 50mm ... laughing

    As for the designers and their mistakes - sorry, this is your speculation. And when booking pr.1144, did you see it yourself? But I have an idea, for example. And I dare to assure you that it is very local, there’s no solid cover in all of the zones you marked , and the thickness of the armor indicated by you does not exist everywhere. You just give digits from any Wikipedia, but what is the subject of discussion that you have never seen before and are not up to date. The main reservation of a modern ship is its air defense.
    1. barbiturate
      barbiturate 17 November 2015 17: 21
      +1
      Quote: Dimon19661
      As for the designers and their mistakes - sorry, this is your speculation.


      Well, since you said
      Quote: Dimon19661
      armored belt, yes, at least 5 meters, missile weapons picked up the baton.
      So the designer just put the wrong armor or 5 meters is not enough, and 100mm is enough for you? laughing

      Quote: Dimon19661
      And on booking pr.1144-did you see it yourself?

      No

      Quote: Dimon19661
      But I have an idea, for example. And I dare to assure you that it is very local, there is no solid cover in all the zones you marked, and the thickness of the armor indicated by you does not exist everywhere. You just give the numbers from any Wikipedia, but what’s that the subject of discussion you have never seen before and you are not up to date. The main reservation of a modern ship is its air defense.


      You did not convince me, all sorts of sites (such as Wikipedia laughing ) give the same information and quite reasonably and with links to respected authors, for some reason I believe these links and authors, as well as specialized forums where this info is considered reliable.
      This means there is a reservation and places with thicknesses are specifically indicated, and the designers were guided by something.
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 17 November 2015 16: 26
    +1
    Oleg, setting a reservation will not lead to anything other than an increase in displacement. The most important thing on the ship is electronics and BIUS. The first shot - won. You are a supporter of armor and the struggle for survivability - a flag in your hands.
  • bk0010
    bk0010 17 November 2015 20: 17
    +1
    Has anyone wondered what kind of armored belt is needed to withstand an explosion of 500 kg warhead on it (and this without taking into account the kinetic energy of the rocket itself)? IMHO, an armored belt of a reasonable thickness will only act as a source of fragments. Remember, in World War 2, tanks were struck by close explosions of FAB 250 type bombs.
  • Nikita Dmitriev
    Nikita Dmitriev 18 November 2015 13: 46
    0
    Quote: Rurikovich

    I would like you to cite as an example, the distribution of the weight loads of something modern and not secret, so that our "analysts" and lovers of capital booking understand that reality and chanting are two different things wink
    Sincerely hi


    They will put me for such a thing))) This is either com secret or secret. True, I don’t see anything secret here, but the 1 department is not asleep.)))
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 18 November 2015 21: 28
      0
      This is your 1 department, and we have 3 management ... Don’t be afraid.
    2. Santa Fe
      19 November 2015 00: 21
      0
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      They will put me for this)

      Say easier, you don't know them
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 18 November 2015 15: 21
    0
    Plus to the author - for perseverance.)
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 18 November 2015 21: 18
      0
      Without Kaptsov, topvar is no longer a cake.
  • Tishka
    Tishka 18 November 2015 18: 31
    +3
    About rockets and torpedoes, I can not judge, there is always a chance for improvement! But it’s a shame to lose a warship, at the price of 5 lard, blown up by a wooden boat, with a hundred kilograms of TNT! When she broke through it, almost half, under the control of a pair of Papuans! So, booking, even if not from missiles or torpedoes, but in some cases, increases the survivability of the ship! But if some people like to go to the ocean, on cans, no problem, only then don’t blame that they ran into the fuel tanker, and didn’t go to the battle zone, they drowned before!
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 18 November 2015 21: 22
      0
      Some cross the ocean in a boat, alone. No reservation.
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 18 November 2015 21: 25
      -1
      Entirely you cannot book, and the Papuan will always find a weak spot. It's a shame to lose speed due to unnecessary armor.
      1. Kars
        Kars 18 November 2015 21: 28
        +2
        Quote: Andrey77
        Some cross the ocean in a boat, alone. No reservation.

        On good, or with his nose torn off?
        Quote: Andrey77
        It’s a shame to lose speed due to unnecessary armor.

        a couple of speed knots is not particularly important in the era of guided missiles, but the ability to withstand a blow, even for one hit more than the enemy is not appreciable.
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 19 November 2015 12: 00
          0
          What are you talking about? The armor will eat you 50% move! Well, if your ship originally had 4 knots ... then yes. I will say more. The mast radar (including ballast to maintain stability) will eat a second 50%. Or throw out the radar? As a result, we get. Or an armored monster, without a radar, with empty cellars. Or a cardboard box with a radar stuffed with weapons. Both will give the same move.
          1. Santa Fe
            19 November 2015 23: 30
            +1
            Quote: Andrey77
            Your armor will eat 50% of your turn!

            How to count?
  • Riv
    Riv 19 November 2015 13: 48
    +1
    The most common battleship. :))) It is possible to propose several methods and not to weigh the destroyer with armor, and at the same time provide increased survival.
    First: submerge the hull under water. All. Cruise missiles can be launched from under water. If there is a need to turn on the radars, then you can ascend to the depth of the superstructure. The probability of finding such a ship from the surface is close to zero. Of course, the hull will be similar to the submarine hull, but what's the problem? After all, we can rivet "any body".
    Second: use composite instead of monolithic steel armor. Ceramic, for example. The plate of such armor is disposable. A rocket explosion will crush it into powder, but what is the problem? Under it, two more layers are the same, and they weigh much easier than steel.
    Third: the most non-trivial. A destroyer does not have to look like a warship. We are building a supertanker. We do not use some of the oil tanks, but mount launchers in them. How many Tomahawks can a Sirius Star take away? Oh, a lot ... Having given one single volley, the ship will condemn itself, but what's the problem? His task is not to survive, but to inflict maximum damage.

    But why turn the destroyer into a battleship - I don’t understand. The task of the battleship has always been a battle within the line of sight. Well, that's why it is called a battleship. Destroyers fight differently.
  • Urfin
    Urfin 20 November 2015 09: 52
    +3
    You can argue a lot about armor. But the fact remains: an armored ship with the same characteristics is better than unarmored.
    But another question arises: what is better than 2 (or 1) armored ships or 3 (4) unarmored. There is already economics, tactics, strategy. Certainly with missile weapons, when a swarm of missiles with a 50% chance of hitting can be launched in a short period of time, it is better to have more unarmored ones. If we are talking about a rather slow rate of fire and poor performance (artillery), then it is better to have less ships, but armored ones.
    In this regard, another question arises - in what proportions will the cost of building armored and unarmored ships be correlated.
    Oleg tried to answer this question. But after he actually equated the tanker’s hull and the warship’s hull, doubts arose about the adequacy of further considerations.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 November 2015 12: 15
      0
      The armor eats up too much! Nobody argues that armor is better than without. At what cost! Not in money - in the performance characteristics of the ship! For the sake of armor, you have to give up a lot.
      1. Urfin
        Urfin 23 November 2015 07: 06
        0
        It would be nice if the experts wrote an article about why they would have to refuse. And how much this reduced the performance characteristics.
        in 60-70 it was clear - the enormous weight and volume of electronics made the use of armor expensive both in terms of money and in terms of performance characteristics. But now, when miniaturization took place, it became possible to transfer some of the functions to satellites, drones, etc.
        Has nothing really changed after that?
        1. Santa Fe
          23 November 2015 18: 50
          0
          Quote: Urfin
          It would be nice if the experts wrote an article about why they would have to refuse.

          Not from what

          Des Moines (1944)

          3 GK towers (450 tons each) - 9 automated 203 mm
          6 twin units of caliber 127 mm
          12 paired anti-aircraft mounts caliber 76 mm
          7 Radars - Navigation and Fire Control
          helipad with maintenance equipment HO2S

          Crew 1800 people.
          Quote: Urfin
          But now that miniaturization has taken place, it became possible to transfer part of the functions to satellites, drones, etc.

          Aha

          Continuation of the description of "Des Moines":

          33 node speed

          GEM - boiler turbine, 8 boilers, 120 000 hp

          Cruising range - 10 000 miles (at 15 knots)

          Reservation: 150 mm belt, 90 mm deck + towers, barbets, traverses, conning tower. Advanced anti-torpedo protection

          Displacement - 20 thousand tons (full)