Military Review

Armadillos in the XXI century. What is wrong with them?

204



A whole series of publications by Comrade Kaptsov on the rationality of the use of booking in modern ships inspired me to write this article. I work in KB in St. Petersburg, in the department of ship systems and power plants, so I probably have to understand this. I will try to consider the advantages and disadvantages of this idea from the point of view of the shipbuilder and estimate in the sketch how such a ship might look.

It’s worth starting with choosing the class of the ship and its displacement. In modern navy, sadly, the days of superlinkors and other giant ships are long gone. The cost of their construction and maintenance is excessively high for today's military budgets. And it will be difficult to find worthy combat missions that smaller class ships would not be able to handle. And no one will build a monster that will stand by its wall all its life, eating millions of rubles for its maintenance. In the XNUMXst century, the fleet is governed by the efficiency / cost ratio, and I will proceed from this.

The practice of fleets of various states shows that the main workhorses in the current day’s sea conflicts are destroyers, frigates and corvettes, or guard ships, if in our way. I will not consider corvettes because of their relatively small displacement (2000-3000), without cramming with such a mass of serious armor. The displacement is 4000-6000 t in frigates and up to 10000 t in destroyers, and if you take into account advanced design, you get 12000 t (Chinese type 055) or 15000 t ("Zamvolt" in the US).



So the limits of displacement have become clear. If we take the contours of the underwater part of the hull of the same “Zamvolta”, then the dimensions are also clear.

Total:
- Displacement - up to 15000 t.
- Length - 180 m.
- Width - 25m.
- Draft - 9 m.

With the power plant, I will not think much and say that there are gas turbines with a total power on the 100000 hp, as in the Arly Burke. The “Zamvolta” power plant is about the same power, and it will allow the ship to accelerate to 30 nodes. In general, fine.

And now the fun begins. What can you protect the ship with armor? The first thing that comes to mind is anti-ship missiles. Let's drop it in the direction of the air defense of the ship (now essentially being a substitute for armor), we will consider it a passed rocket. Consider ways to defeat.

Armadillos in the XXI century. What is wrong with them?


From the diagrams it is clear that the defeat goes either to the board or from the top to the superstructure, depending on the type of rocket. So, it is necessary to book both the board and the superstructure. And the board will have to book up to the upper deck, since the rocket does not hit the waterline, but at 5-6 meters above.



Now think about the thickness of the reservation. The warhead RCC carries between 100 and 400 kg of explosive. This is comparable to high-explosive cannon shots from 250 mm. Linkor calibers! RCC speed when entering the target often exceeds 1000 m / s, this is the speed of a rifle bullet! That is, the reservation must withstand a direct hit of a high-explosive projectile caliber above 250 mm, flying at a speed of a bullet. Honestly, I can’t say for sure how thick the armor will withstand such an impact, but let's say that the 100 mm is enough to prevent a blast wave from breaking through into the body.

Now we decide how we will book. The whole body will not book. 1000 m2 hundred-millimeter armor will weigh 700-800 tons, plus the gain set of the body to withstand the load when it hits, it is still twenty-five percent. It turns out. that 1000 m2 armor weighs 1000 t, it seems not so bad. But now we will count. Reservations from the sides of the engine rooms. Need it? Need to. One MO in length is fifteen meters for such ships, and usually two of them. The easiest way to make a citadel. It turns out that if you book at least the height of 5 m and the depth of 1 m from the waterline, you need approximately 500 m2 armor, it is 500 tons of weight. Further reservation decks. It is necessary the same thickness as the sides, and if you book only a citadel, you get 1000 m2, or 1000 t armor. If you stick the bridge and the main BP in the citadel and control the ship using monitors, then they, it turns out, are protected. Fine! Total 1500 t extra weight, and the survivability of the ship is dramatically increased. But a small "but." Weapon systems in the citadel can not be stuffed, you can not hide the radar. Let the rocket mines can be booked, this is, let's say, another 200-300 t armor. Let phased-array radars have increased survivability, and only partially falling out of a single hit. But the defense of the near and medium range armor can not be defended. Their guidance radars are still vulnerable. Communication antennas can not be removed from the add-in. Auxiliary radars too. When a rocket hits the superstructure, we still lose a lot in combat effectiveness, go blind by half the eye, and go deaf by half the ear, but still maintain the ability to fight at least somehow.

But all this can be achieved constructively, with the help of rational placement of premises and combat posts, which, in fact, is done. BP is spread around the ship, weapons are also “smeared” on the hull, so that it is not possible to deactivate all this with a single blow.

But, again, this is not important. These 1500-2000 t armor will be located above the center of gravity and accordingly affect stability. This weight must be compensated, and a simple equivalent increase in displacement will not work out. We'll have to put the ballast in order to return the value of the metacentric height of the ship back and preserve the original stability. If we assume that the total center of gravity of the armor will be higher than the center of gravity of the ship somewhere on the 5-10 m, then we will have to lay a ballast of equivalent weight on the bottom. This means that the weight does not increase by 2000, but by all 4000 tons.

And how to compensate for this? Throw out unnecessary equipment. But there is no such thing on the ship. Increase the length of the ship. But in order to add 4000 and displacement you will have to add 40 meters to the length, the ship already looks more like a canoe than a destroyer. This is not an option. Increase the width. Then the resistance of the underwater part of the hull will increase, and we will lose the course, besides, more armor will be required, and such a ship will not get through the canals. Increase the draft. But where is more? And, again, lose the move.

The most logical of these options can only throw equipment. Reduce the number of weapons. The result will be a frigate with a destroyer displacement. And worth more than the same frigate at least one and a half times. Why so? Well, 50% ship cost is a weapon system. They remained like a frigate. Power plants will have to be installed as a destroyer, and they are more powerful in 2 and, accordingly, more expensive. EU pulls the rest of the system. They will become more expensive. The body is almost twice as large and “hemorrhoid” in the assembly because of the armor and the complexity of welding, which, again, affects the price. The armor itself is also worth the money and big. The price is usually negotiable and depends on the steel grade, and the size of the sheets required, but price limits can be determined. One ton of armor plate costs, approximately, from 300000 rubles. And why should we build two armored frigates for the price of three, if they have no special advantages, but they are more expensive?

In conclusion, I will say my opinion on the reservation, that it has a place to be, but not as in the Great Patriotic War, but as a point and light splinter material. The main units and mechanisms, battle posts, the bridge and that's it, the ship is not a tank, must be protected. It is necessary to apply as much constructive protection as possible, covering critical equipment with auxiliary ones. And, of course, as much as possible air defense. Here, in fact, all the measures of protection. In principle, now ships are building like this, and armor plates have sunk in time. Alas and ah.
Author:
204 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir.
    Vladimir. 5 December 2015 07: 12
    -2
    The author of the article is right. But, there is one "But". The armor can be placed at angles, which will reduce its weight, and a base like a trimaran will help to reduce resistance. Therefore, it is still possible to create a highly protected ship, although it will cost accordingly. In fact, this it is necessary only for cruisers, but they are not popular.
    1. Vita vko
      Vita vko 5 December 2015 08: 52
      13
      Quote: Vladimir.
      Armor can be placed at angles, which will reduce its weight, and reduce resistance

      Besides that
      armored plates drowned in time
      Ceramic armor, which is somewhat more expensive than iron, but has the properties of a radio-absorbing coating, and can significantly reduce the detection range, will "surface". With mass production, the cost of ceramic armor will be significantly reduced.
      1. amba balamut 77
        amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 09: 21
        19
        We don’t have money for armored frigates, but you say expensive ceramic ... There’s a big article for the author +, especially the last paragraph.
        1. Darkmor
          Darkmor 5 December 2015 16: 03
          11
          I will express my profane opinion, but it makes no sense to book a ship from heavy RCC.
          On the other hand, it is necessary to minimize the possible damage from contact.
          Here I agree with the last paragraph of the author.

          Reservations must be multi-layered.
          External booking, internal booking, and ext. booking vital sites.
          If a missile breaks through an external reservation, it is desirable that the warhead detonation be initiated by it - and would not allow the missile to fly inside the hull.
          Those. the thickness of the outer armor of the hull should be such that the rocket simply does not flash it like paper. The fact that there will be a hole in this armor is not scary.

          In the future, the blast wave should be extinguished by internal booking - and here the location of the premises plays a big role. Unnecessary for battle premises and subsystems of the ship should cover critical ones. Their overlap should be designed for resistance to volumetric deformation (knock-out panels to increase volume, flexible materials, heat resistance).

          As a result, if the blast wave and the striking elements reach the important systems of the ship, they must meet the last layer of the reservation - a kind of armored capsule, whose task will be to stop the already weakened blast wave and fragments.
          It turns out such a multi-layer "body armor", where 1-2 layers of protection in any case break through.

          For the ship here, the main burden will not lie on the weight of the armor - but rather on its volume. Part of the reservation will also play the role of supporting structures - and will depend a lot on the interior layout of the premises.
          It is better to lose the dining room, or the hangar for a helicopter, but keep the propulsion system.
          Also, it is desirable that the vital nodes are duplicated and not located nearby - if possible.
    2. serega.fedotov
      serega.fedotov 5 December 2015 09: 37
      +9
      For some reason, everyone rested on big ships, and the latest conflicts show that the "baby" works more and more efficiently, and simply cheaper. And they will not spend powerful anti-ship missiles on them, maximum analogues of "uranium", or even anti-aircraft missiles will be fired , that is, booking such ships is quite possible.
      In addition, you can book not the "stuffing" of the ship, but the place of work and the location of the crew - people are more important than iron, and there are a lot of examples when ships that were broken into "trash" were brought to ports.
      But in fact, all this in principle in the Navy has long been implemented
      1. Alex
        Alex 5 December 2015 11: 16
        +4
        Quote: serega.fedotov
        For some reason, everyone ran into big ships, and the latest conflicts show that the "baby" works even more and more efficiently

        I agree, but conflicts are also small. For ISIS, in principle, it is suitable, but in a larger conflict ... Probably, a reasonable compromise is needed between all methods of protection, because (IMHO, of course) a warship is also vulnerable without armor.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 5 December 2015 14: 00
        -1
        Quote: serega.fedotov
        For some reason, everyone rested on big ships, and the latest conflicts show that the "baby" works more and more efficiently, and simply cheaper. And they will not spend powerful anti-ship missiles on them, maximum analogues of "uranium", or even anti-aircraft missiles will be fired , that is, booking such ships is quite possible.
        In addition, you can book not the "stuffing" of the ship, but the place of work and the location of the crew - people are more important than iron, and there are a lot of examples when ships that were broken into "trash" were brought to ports.
        But in fact, all this in principle in the Navy has long been implemented


        What conflicts did this show?
      3. yehat
        yehat 7 December 2015 00: 00
        +1
        "little ones" are usually more effective in specific small skirmishes, however, large ships take into account a wide range of situations. Therefore, both are needed
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 December 2015 10: 23
      19
      Quote: Vladimir.
      Armor can be placed at angles, which will reduce its weight, and

      (heavy sigh) Placing the armor at an angle does not reduce the mass of the armor. Armor anyway, at what angle you set it, the mass of this will not change. Another question is that by placing the armor plate at an angle to the trajectory of the striking element (projectile, missile) you will increase the reduced thickness of the armor that the projectile / missile will have to penetrate, but this is achieved by reducing the armored surface. Those. placing the plate at an angle increases the thickness of the armor (due to the turning angle), but for the same reason reduces the reservation area.
      Quote: Vladimir.
      and a trimaran base will help reduce resistance

      The trimaran for the destroyer does not give any benefits at all (except for the breadth of the deck), the disadvantages are the sea. Such a case weighs more than usual, while much more vulnerable.
      1. Banshee
        Banshee 5 December 2015 13: 03
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Placing armor on a slope does not reduce the mass of armor. An armor plate does not matter at what angle you install it, the mass will not change from this.


        U !!! Nobody canceled the physics of the 7 class! +!

        Destroyer-trimaran ... Cruiser-catamaran ... BDK with antigrav ... Blasters ... Nuclear-pumped lasers ... In the course of "Star Wars" bore fruit.
        1. TiRex
          TiRex 5 December 2015 19: 32
          +5
          placing the armor at an angle is relevant for armor-piercing and cumulative damaging elements, but for a land mine it is not quite true.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 6 December 2015 00: 41
          0
          Quote: Banshee
          U !!! Nobody canceled the physics of the 7 class! +!

          What is the seventh grade ?! This is the most primitive sine / cosine. Of course, I’m not a mathematician, and generally a schismatic by higher education, that is, an economist, but ...
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 10 December 2015 09: 31
            0
            When you write "matmatic" without quotation marks, it is easy to question your higher education. In the same "Chrome" there is an automatic spell checker and this word is quite underlined in red. In addition, the word "schism" means - split (this expression is related to the term "schizophrenia" - the division of the soul). I did not think that economists are schismatics of the Orthodox Church ... request
            I believe that the use of sophisticated words with a poor understanding of their meaning does not contribute to understanding the problem under consideration.
            Regarding the article, I want to note that the estimated data look, in my opinion, very entertaining, but in some places they are very very estimated.
            For example, it is not clear why the introduction of armor, which is 10% of the displacement, suddenly increases the mass of hull structures by 25%. It turns out that the frame for a tourist backpack will also weigh 25% of the load? I stuffed a backpack of 30 kg - prepare 8 kg of straps, frames and screeds? And if the armor is included in the power pack, and not stupidly attached to the sides (which was used on armored boats in World War II, even on the IL-2 they did it, but for the aircraft the mass of the structure is much more critical than for the ship)? And how was armor up to 400 mm made on cruisers of the 2nd World War in such situations? This is the first.
            Secondly, the talk about the need to book ships arose because even a line from a machine gun or a boat breakthrough with explosives sometimes causes irreparable damage. And the bulletproof or anti-fragmentation armor should not be thicker than 2-3 inches, if steel. In addition, he did not notice that the current special forces resembled armor like knights of the 16th century. Bulletproof vests have quite a combination armor, which is significantly lighter than knightly armor, and it holds the bullet much better, and has steel or ceramic sheets in the form of inserts, and not a monolith. By the way, not a single dur.ak even puts monolithic armor on tanks ... fool
            So, when using modern Krupp technologies, mass calculations look somewhat different ... request
      2. goose
        goose 8 December 2015 17: 23
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You will increase the reduced thickness of the armor that the projectile / rocket will have to penetrate, but this is achieved by reducing the armored surface. Those. placing the plate at an angle increases the thickness of the armor (due to the turning angle), but for the same reason reduces the reservation area.

        Who cares? All the same, the structural elements of the reservation are not used in any way, there is a lot of space on the ship. I think the armored bevels on the ships are extremely positive. It’s just to build and upgrade ships, which have a lot of everything inside, except for the armored belt, is unrealistically difficult.
    4. avt
      avt 5 December 2015 10: 49
      16
      Quote: Vladimir.
      The author of the article is right. But there is one "But"

      He is a pest. wassat Because
      Quote: Vladimir.
      ". The armor can be placed at angles, which will reduce its weight, and the base like a trimaran will help to reduce resistance.

      Armor must be put! So Oleg commanded! And heretics we will burn at the stake. laughing
      Quote: Vita VKO
      ceramic armor will "pop up"

      And no ceramic excuses will not help the enemies of the armored business - we will identify and punish everyone! wassat
      Quote: Gani
      I can not reasonably agree or refute the ideas of the author or Kaptsov

      Doubters will be sent to a hot workshop - forge armor!
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      (heavy sigh)

      Ahhhh! One of the main schismatics anticipates the armored right hand brought over him by the faithful followers of Oleg’s teachings! laughing Not! I finish - there is nothing to seriously discuss again - everything has already been said, but I do not want to raise the degree, because here I am silent.
      1. Silhouette
        Silhouette 5 December 2015 12: 50
        +4
        I propose to the supporters of armadillos to consider the project of an armored trimaran-cruiser. And maybe a battleship. Or islands.
        1. family tree
          family tree 5 December 2015 13: 29
          +8
          Quote: Silhouette
          Or islands.

          Late recourse Has long been
          The fort is located on El Frail Island near the fairway of the southern entrance to Manila Bay, Luzon Island, Philippines. More precisely, "the fort is located on the island" - this is not said quite accurately. Rather, the island is under the fort. The construction of the fort began in 1909, the name was given at the same time - in honor of Brigadier General Richard Drum, a hero of the American-Mexican and American Civil Wars, also known for notably driving the Sioux Indians at one time. They approached the issue of construction simply and directly - they took this very island of El Frail, sawed off the top of it, trimmed the contours to the required ones, poured fortification concrete on top, and extended the interior into the resulting cake.
          And there was such
        2. Aqela
          Aqela 10 December 2015 09: 41
          0
          An island with the Mannerheim line on it! Cool! fellow belay
      2. Aqela
        Aqela 10 December 2015 09: 40
        0
        It seems to me that with malice you have slightly gone too far. In addition, the question regarding the reservation of ships is so persistently raised and debated not because Kaptsov is so stubborn, but because there really is a problem. yes
        And how else to assess the situation when a hefty pelvis with a displacement of about 10 thousand tons and carrying terribly expensive and brutally cool weapons and equipment suddenly turns into a pile of precious rubbish from a ram of a boat with dynamite or a ram with a rocket weighing 700 kg and subsonic speed (even without explosion warhead). request crying negative
    5. Forest
      Forest 5 December 2015 12: 40
      10
      Well, how is it necessary to smear the ship on the surface of the water to ensure rational inclines for the 5-6 meter side?
      1. Chiropractor
        Chiropractor 5 December 2015 13: 14
        10
        Did you see a stingray?
        Well, something like that, only above the surface ... laughing
        1. Forest
          Forest 5 December 2015 13: 24
          +7
          And it will be called Popovka-2.
          1. Pauls_77
            Pauls_77 7 December 2015 07: 16
            0
            Umbilical !!!! wassat
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aqela
        Aqela 10 December 2015 09: 50
        0
        The inventions of Admiral Popov are real evidence of the possibility of such garbage. In addition, who says that ships should be built of steel? For many years, heavy trucks have been making themselves out of stressed concrete. They walk, loads carry ...
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%96%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D
        1%82%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%B1%D
        0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8
        masterok.livejournal.com/168747.html
        http://erazvitie.org/article/lomaem_stereotipy
        By the way, in the last of the articles there is a funny quote, to the place:
        A study conducted by the Mythbusters proved that paper armor was in no way inferior to metal and especially leather.

        hi Something like this!
    6. alicante11
      alicante11 5 December 2015 14: 03
      +4
      Armor can be placed at angles, which will reduce its weight


      And at what angles? A missile is not a projectile with a flat trajectory, the angle of impact of which can be determined at least approximately. In addition, the armor here is high-explosive and anti-fragmentation, because there are apparently no armor-piercing anti-ship missiles. Therefore, the angle of impact will not play such a big role.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 5 December 2015 20: 20
        +7
        Quote: alicante11
        A missile is not a projectile with a flat trajectory whose impact angle can be determined at least approximately.
        Allow your 5 cents to paste.
        Typically, RCC approaches the bur along the normal to the vertical and various angles along the horizon. You can’t say about those who make an anti-aircraft slide and pour into the ship from above.
        Second.
        Quote: alicante11
        the armor here is high-explosive and anti-fragmentation, because there are apparently no armor-piercing anti-ship missiles.
        Yes, no one is currently booking a board. On the AMS AMUs there is a 127mm armor plate at an angle to direct the fragments down, rather than a 50mm Kevlar armor belt protecting critical ship components (BZ cellars or nuclear power plants, for example). At the same time, Kevlar is 5 times stronger than steel and much easier. This is a word.
        Warhead modern RCC different: there is semi-armor-piercing penetrating type. This is so that, breaking structural protection (say the sides), the TGA would rush inside the hull, taking to hell the whole internal architecture of the ship. Then, as a rule, everyone completes the fires. There are tandem warheads ... But the essence is one. Deliver an explosive charge inside the case so that it explodes there, and not behind the skin of the side, destroying the constructive protection.
        In general, it's time to put systems like Arena or OS protection on ships, as in the Strategic Missile Forces. But it seems to me that electronic warfare systems are more promising, burning out the missiles of the anti-ship missiles, leading them to false targets, etc. But no one has yet canceled a partial reservation.
        Something like this. hi
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 10 December 2015 09: 55
          0
          I think that all these "Arenas" are just an attempt to simulate an air defense-missile defense system on a tank, and not vice versa. Another thing is that apart from cannons-machine guns, it is really possible to put some metalstorm on the ship ... Due to the lesser restrictions on the mass and dimensions on the ship, rather than on the tank, it is possible to close up any non-standard approach to strengthening active defense, and not just armor - passive defense ...
      2. goose
        goose 8 December 2015 17: 27
        +1
        Quote: alicante11
        because there’s no armor-piercing anti-ship missiles

        There is, moreover, the most affordable RCC Exoset, just has a semi-armor-piercing part, which 50-70 mm booking is quite tough.
        About our Soviet monsters with their special warheads, their masses and speeds, I generally keep quiet, and there 100-150 mm on board will not help.
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 10 December 2015 09: 57
          0
          Yeah, that's right, but here people often snort at Wikipedia, but they drive a blizzard without looking not only at the "despicable" Wikipedia, but also at the physics textbook for the 8th grade of high school ... "Experts", however! wassat
    7. The comment was deleted.
  2. vglazunov
    vglazunov 5 December 2015 07: 13
    +3
    Tyukh, tyukh, tyukh, tyukh ... Our iron flared up ... ... Our iron flared up ... However, the dead end direction.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 5 December 2015 12: 06
      0
      to add 4000 tons of displacement, you will have to add another 40 meters to the length, the ship already looks more like a kayak in terms of contours than a destroyer. This is not an option. Increase width. Then increase the resistance of the underwater part of the body, and lose trackIn addition, more armor will be required, and such a ship will no longer creep into the canals. Increase draft. Yes, much more ?! Yes and, again, lose track.


      Although, in the previous paragraph, a respected shipbuilding engineer stated the exact opposite:

      Zamvolt (15 thousand tons) and Arly Burke (10 thousand tons) have power plants of the same power (100 thousand tons) and the same speed.

      That is, the problem with the “extra” 5000 tons suddenly “evaporated” somewhere.
      With power plant I won’t think much and will say that there are gas turbines with a total capacity of 100000 hp, like Arly Burke. The Zamvolt power plant has approximately the same power, and it will allow the ship to accelerate to 30 nodes.

      If N. Dmitriev thought a little harder, he would have noticed that the speed and power requirement of the EC weakly correlate with displacement.

      It is for this reason that the heavy cruisers of the war years, being twice as large, were content with almost the same power as modern destroyers (the difference is not more than 10-20%). At the same time, they were faster than modern ships (33 and more nodes)
      1. Army soldier2
        Army soldier2 5 December 2015 13: 18
        +6
        Now think about the thickness of the reservation. The RCC warhead carries from 100 to 400 kg of explosive. This is comparable to high-explosive cannon shots from 250 mm caliber. Battleship calibers! The speed of anti-ship missiles when approaching a target often exceeds 1000 m / s, this is the speed of a rifle bullet! That is, the reservation must withstand the direct hit of a high-explosive caliber projectile above 250 mm flying at a bullet speed. Honestly, I can’t say exactly how thick the armor can withstand such a hit, but let's say that 100 mm is enoughto prevent the blast wave from breaking inside the enclosure.

        The gorgeous scientific approach of the ship.
        I looked at the weight of explosives in large-caliber naval artillery shells. For example, I took the 320-millimeter ship artillery gun 320 mm / 44 Mod. 1934 of the year. Weight BB 175 kg, initial speed 830 m / s. That is, the weight is not 400, and the speed is not 1000.
        Especially touched "but let's say that 100 mm is enough." And if we assume that 50 mm or 500 is enough?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 5 December 2015 20: 35
          +1
          Quote: Army 2
          The gorgeous scientific approach of the shipbuilder

          It touched me too. Neither the ultimate strength and yield strength of the material, nor the momentum of force, nor the pressure per square centimeter ... In a word - not Kaptsov!
          1. alex86
            alex86 5 December 2015 21: 19
            +5
            I will apologize for the amateurish approach, but in times of large calibers it was believed that the thickness of the armor should be greater than the caliber of the main enemy - that is, if the enemy has 305 mm of armor-piercing (mind you!) Shells, then the booking should be more than 305 mm. The anti-ship missile warheads are not rolled here, since, according to the ideas of the time, "large calibers" are not armor-piercing, but fragmentation, and armor comparable to the caliber (diameter of the warhead) will not penetrate. Therefore, 100 mm in the article, on the one hand, are not serious ("Vulcan" / "Basalt" will penetrate due to the total mass), on the other hand, "Caliber" / "Onyx" will not penetrate such armor, although it will demolish everything outside it - Radar, launching, short-range AU, cable networks.
            And if possible according to Kaptsov’s articles:
            1. Armor is better than its absence.
            2. A ship kept afloat is better than a sunken ship
            3. Restore a ship returning to base faster than build a new one
        2. Bormanxnumx
          Bormanxnumx 5 December 2015 22: 53
          +1
          In a 320mm high explosive projectile, up to 40kg., And 175kg is the weight of a powder charge.
          The weight of the explosives of the sea high-explosive shells did not exceed 110kg (the shell of the British gun 18 "/ 40Mark I), and the bulk had 20-90kg. The speed of the 14" -18 "caliber shells at distances of 20-30km was about 450-400m / s The speed of most anti-ship missiles subsonic and have warheads weighing in the range of 200-250kg (the weight of the warhead is not the weight of the explosives - for example, in the P-15M anti-ship missiles, the warhead weighs 513kg, and the weight of the explosives is 370kg.
          1. Aqela
            Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 09
            0
            "The poet's soul could not bear it" laughing But as a matter of fact, I agree. The argument should be more significant than the banana skins in the dispute between the monkeys, and the facts should be approached more carefully ... yes
        3. Nikita Dmitriev
          5 December 2015 23: 11
          +1
          I wrote that I mean high-explosive shells, read carefully. And I do not believe that 100 mm is enough, because I represent the energy capacity of RCC, but I admit that it will not break, otherwise booking such small vessels loses all sense, because it becomes too heavy.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 6 December 2015 09: 52
            0
            Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
            since I represent the energy power of RCC

            you forgot to imagine mechanical strength

            or you think in vain the coefficient. filling armor-piercing shells was calculated 2-3%

            as for rocket energy, the speed of the harpoon (exoset / NSM / SOM) is half that of a projectile at the time of a meeting with a target
        4. Aqela
          Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 06
          0
          Without providing data on armor penetration with this shell, your remark does not look complete and weakly reasoned. Although I agree with the main message. By the way, in the USA they use 127 mm armored plates (i.e. 5 inches).
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. sniper
        sniper 5 December 2015 14: 27
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the speed and power requirement of the EC weakly correlate with displacement.

        Oleg, how much can you say .... Displacement alone does not mean much. The proportions of the ship, the contours, and the size of the wetted surface matter ... These values, in a first approximation, determine the course of the ship and the required power of the EI ... Once there were attempts to create round armadillos in terms of what came out of it, you can google it ...
        The longer the ship, the greater the speed in displacement mode it can achieve, the narrower it is, the less resistance to movement ...
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 5 December 2015 21: 12
          -2
          Quote: sniper
          The longer the ship, the greater the speed in displacement mode it can achieve, the narrower it is, the less resistance to movement ...

          so, what is next,

          which of this is a specific conclusion, how is this related to the dispute about the presence / absence of reservation
          Quote: sniper
          Displacement alone does not mean much. The proportions of the ship, the contours, and the size of the wetted surface ...

          destroyer Burke - 20 meters wide
          destroyer Zamvolt - 24 meters
          EU speed and power are the same

          what's next?
          1. Nikita Dmitriev
            5 December 2015 23: 26
            +3
            Dear Oleg, in open sources you will NEVER find accurate data on the speed of the operating ship of the Navy of any country. And all the data indicated is either underestimated or overstated. I wrote guided by OPEN sources.

            And now about speed. I do not believe that the switch will be able to issue the declared 30 nodes for at least some long time, but the United States writes this and I indicate this. Why do not I believe? Draft is greater, width is greater, displacement is greater, electric propulsion is applied. A ship cannot have higher underwater resistance (as with the hull do not play, do not escape from it), with the same power, have the same speed. This is a commonplace hydraulics with hydrodynamics. Do not get away from this.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 6 December 2015 10: 01
              -1
              Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
              in open sources you will NEVER find accurate speed data operating ship Navy of any country

              See WWII era cruisers. Baltimore, Mioko, Chokai. Dimensions, power and speed
              Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
              Draft is greater, width is greater, displacement is greater, electric propulsion is applied. A ship cannot have higher underwater resistance (as with the hull do not play, do not escape from it), with the same power, have the same speed. This is a commonplace hydraulics with hydrodynamics. Do not get away from this.

              Therefore, the speed of the Zamvolt is less than 1 knot than that of the "31-knot" berk

              What is the 1 node - in the era of radar and rockets? don't give a damn and forget

              You, dear, have no calculations with specific formulas and binding coefficients.
              to prove something by calculation (and even more so, to refute) you can not. And if so - at least do not argue with the obvious

              battle cruiser "Haruna". Length 220 meters, width midships 29.
              total displacement 32 000 tons
              power plant 136 thousand hp
              speed 30 knots


              why is it so? - to disperse the second larger engine to the specified speed (30 knots), it is enough to increase the power of the power plant by 30%.
              speed and power requirement are weakly correlated with dimensions and displacement
            2. adept666
              adept666 7 December 2015 09: 30
              0
              I do not believe that zamvolt will be able to issue the declared 30 knots for at least some long time, but the United States writes this and I indicate this
              Seriously and on what are your doubts based? smile But I’m thinking about keeping Zavolt’s maximum for a long time better than Arly’s, for one simple reason: its gas turbines will always work in optimized mode wink
          2. adept666
            adept666 7 December 2015 09: 28
            +1
            destroyer Burke - 20 meters wide
            destroyer Zamvolt - 24 meters
            EU speed and power are the same

            Well, here the chip is most likely in the type of EU. Zamvolta has more shaft power than Arly smile
      4. tlauicol
        tlauicol 5 December 2015 15: 15
        +3
        Oleg, is there data on the speed / autonomy of Zamvolt? Not. only theory. Wait and see
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 5 December 2015 21: 15
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Oleg, is there data on the speed / autonomy of Zamvolt? Not. only theory. Wait and see

          What should we see

          don't like Zamwolt - see Baltimore / Des Moines / Mioko.
          any tkr of that era
      5. stur
        stur 5 December 2015 23: 41
        -2
        These 1500-2000 t armor will be located above the center of gravity and accordingly affect stability. This weight must be compensated, and a simple equivalent increase in displacement here is not enough. You will have to put the ballast in order to return the metacentric height of the ship back and maintain the original stability.

        and more respected shipbuilder - It seems to me that in order to align the center of gravity it is not necessary to add ballast, you can initially design the ship taking into account the armor, well, for example, put the car a little lower, lower other weighty nodes below. You are going to hook armor on a ready-made destroyer, is this a new project? in short no you're a shipbuilder
        1. Nikita Dmitriev
          5 December 2015 23: 48
          +3
          Damn how do these enrages a LITTLE BELOW !!! Does not work. We fight for, damn it, every ton that is above the waterline is located. All the possible equipment and so ALMOST BELOW possible is located. Not where to lower.
          It’s easier then to build a submarine.
          A little lower ... Wise guy. I wrote that it’s a frigate the size of a destroyer. Read at least some design basics before writing.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 6 December 2015 10: 08
            +2
            Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
            I wrote that it’s a frigate the size of a destroyer

            Read easier

            take tkr myoko

            exclude GK towers, Kampon steam boilers, etc. obsolete junk weighing thousands of tons, reduce crew by 6 times

            instead - compact UVP and gas turbines

            SUDDENLY there will be a backup article of a load of thousands of tons. Now imagine how you can dispose of it. Including spending a part on increasing security with new technologies (conventional and perforated armor integrated into the power pack of the hull, inch-thick internal shatterproof bulkheads, cofferdam filled with pipe cuttings, etc., etc.)
            1. goose
              goose 9 December 2015 10: 34
              0
              To be fair, the Japanese had D-type turrets (other types are not thicker) were "paper" ones, with 25-mm splinter armor. They weighed only 169 tons, including elevators.
              Those. all 5 towers were 850 tons. But part of the work in the towers was done manually, which reduced the rate of fire. As a positive point, the gun barrels were quite wide apart and the mutual influence in the salvo was minimal, which increased accuracy. The presence of only two barrels in the tower made it possible to maintain an acceptable rate of fire, which would not have been possible to maintain with three barrels.
              Europeans allocated at least 1000 tons to the armament of GKs of similar TKR.
      6. Aqela
        Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 02
        0
        But I put a "plus"! I do not always agree with SWEET_SIXTEEN, however, here we have a typical "bast in the line" and quite a sensible remark! Nobody has canceled the hydrodynamics and calculations of the ship's contours, call it a kayak or a destroyer ... By the way, compare the contours of some Missouri battleship and a good kayak - you will find many matches!
  3. Igor39
    Igor39 5 December 2015 07: 15
    +3
    We are waiting from Skolkovo for 100 mm graphene armor wink
    1. kit_bellew
      kit_bellew 5 December 2015 08: 57
      +8
      From Chubais to Carrotkin, you will wait for the mystery.
      1. the most important
        the most important 5 December 2015 14: 06
        +4
        Quote: kit_bellew
        From Chubais to Carrotkin, you will wait for the mystery.

        Chubais: Here is a new nano-armor !!! And the fact that you do not see it, it is only because it is NANO !!! It helps a lot from nano-shells !!!!!
  4. Major_Vortex
    Major_Vortex 5 December 2015 07: 31
    20
    A rare article for its adequacy. Today, the Internet is dominated by fans of alternative history who dream of super armored super battleships, but do not know the lessons of history. Japanese super-battleships of the Second World War, possessing excellent armor and weapons, "Musashi" and "Yamato" were successfully sunk by enemy carrier-based aircraft. Musashi sank 259 torpedo bombers and dive bomber of which losses amounted to 18 airplanes. And Yamato sent 227 American deck aircraft to the bottom, with the loss of the Americans amounted to 10 aircraft. A waste of money when you count the cost of producing 18 or 10 carrier-based aircraft versus the cost of building one Yamato-class battleship.
    1. kalach
      kalach 5 December 2015 08: 31
      16
      Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
      A rare article for its adequacy. Today, the Internet is dominated by fans of alternative history who dream of super armored super battleships, but do not know the lessons of history. Japanese super-battleships of the Second World War, possessing excellent armor and weapons, "Musashi" and "Yamato" were successfully sunk by enemy carrier-based aircraft. Musashi sank 259 torpedo bombers and dive bomber of which losses amounted to 18 airplanes. And Yamato sent 227 American deck aircraft to the bottom, with the loss of the Americans amounted to 10 aircraft. A waste of money when you count the cost of producing 18 or 10 carrier-based aircraft versus the cost of building one Yamato-class battleship.

      There’s a galaxy-sized hole in your logical chain: I’m pretty sure that the Americans had to pay not only for a dozen downed planes, but also for carriers and hundreds of other planes that were tormented by battleships all day.
      1. amba balamut 77
        amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 09: 33
        +7
        You are both right. Add psychology, the fear of admirals to lose such expensive live. Also note that the Japanese air defense was weak, qualitatively, and not quantitatively. And yet, the battleship was not created to deal with aircraft.
        1. Alex
          Alex 5 December 2015 11: 27
          +9
          Quote: amba balamut 77
          Add psychology, the fear of admirals to lose such expensive live. Also note that the Japanese air defense was weak, qualitatively, and not quantitatively.

          Plus the fact that the Yamato went on that flight to practically make hara-kiri (even one-way fuel).
          1. goose
            goose 9 December 2015 10: 37
            +1
            Quote: Alex
            Plus the fact that the Yamato went on that flight to practically make hara-kiri (even one-way fuel).

            True, a reduced and poorly trained crew, unable to get on a plane and fight for survivability. Lack of escort. Inability to give full speed.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 5 December 2015 09: 41
        +2
        In addition, in our time, aviation simply cannot arrange a massive bulk on a warship with advanced air defense. If not ten aircraft carriers, but ten battleships had piled on Yamato, the result would hardly have changed.
        1. Alex
          Alex 5 December 2015 11: 30
          +4
          Quote: KaPToC
          If not ten aircraft carriers, but ten battleships had piled on Yamato, the result would hardly have changed.

          For "Yamato" - most likely, yes, but the amers would not have to tell that penny planes sank the millionth battleship. It is not for nothing that they never once used their battleships against the line fleet of the empire: everything is not so simple here.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 6 December 2015 15: 39
            +1
            Quote: Alex
            For "Yamato" - most likely, yes, but the amers would not have to tell that penny planes sank the millionth battleship.

            In fairness, I must say that the Japanese also had aircraft carriers and the victory of the Americans - this is not a victory of aircraft carriers over battleships, this is a victory due to the total numerical superiority of Americans over the Japanese in general.
        2. clidon
          clidon 5 December 2015 18: 25
          +3
          Aviation can now fall even better - missiles. The power of which can be adjusted depending on the security of the ship.
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 5 December 2015 18: 30
            0
            Quote: clidon
            The power of which can be adjusted depending on the security of the ship

            Well no. It depends on the capacity of the aircraft.
            1. clidon
              clidon 5 December 2015 22: 31
              0
              U \ You can reduce the number of missiles and increase the outfit of aircraft. Or just fit the submarine, on which there will be even more. Apply false targets and interference, etc. All of this has already been invented and, in general, is used to overcome the active protection of the ship. Is it worth fencing another constructive belt, instead of building up what is already available, worked out and efficiently, that is, air defense.
              1. Dart2027
                Dart2027 6 December 2015 11: 44
                +1
                Quote: clidon
                You can reduce the number of rockets
                That will facilitate the work of the air defense of the attacked ship.
                Quote: clidon
                Or just fit the sub
                Actually, we are talking about airplanes and their capabilities.
                Quote: clidon
                instead of
                Why instead? One does not exclude the other, unless of course go to extremes.
                1. clidon
                  clidon 6 December 2015 13: 09
                  0
                  Well, I already wrote - it’s quite easy to compensate for the number of missiles by increasing the number of aircraft. This will be easier than fundamentally revising shipbuilding approaches.

                  One does not exclude the other, unless of course go to extremes.

                  Do you think that the weight of the armor does not affect the amount of air defense?
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 8 December 2015 20: 50
                    +1
                    Quote: clidon
                    it’s not difficult to compensate for the number of missiles by increasing the number of aircraft

                    Can. But the plane is also an expensive product that requires appropriate infrastructure, which also flies a pretty penny.
                    Quote: clidon
                    Do you think that the weight of the armor does not affect the amount of air defense?

                    Everything is somewhat more complicated. The armor integrates with the body and does not affect the amount of internal space in which the equipment is located. Of course, everywhere there are nuances, but there is nothing unbelievable in this. In the worst case, you will have to reduce the maximum speed by 2-3 knots.
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 5 December 2015 22: 28
          +4
          Quote: KaPToC
          In addition, in our time, aviation simply cannot arrange a massive bulk on a warship with advanced air defense.
          And why else would that be?
          AMG from 2 AVU type Nimitz in the first wave is able to raise up to 48 carriers of anti-ship missiles. Each has an average of 4 anti-ship missiles. Total 192 birds. For each, 2 missiles are needed - these are 384 missiles ... Let 30% take down the MZA, and the electronic warfare funds will be withdrawn.
          About 130 anti-ship missiles will remain. Attention, question: Where to get 260 missiles? to repel an attack by aircraft carrier aircraft operating at a distance of 800-1000km from the carrier? And this is only the first wave. And after her there will be a couple more ...
          And some say that we do not need aircraft carriers ...
          Samotopot, damn it!
          1. common man
            common man 5 December 2015 22: 43
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            AMG from 2 AVU type Nimitz in the first wave is able to raise up to 48 carriers of anti-ship missiles. Each has an average of 4 anti-ship missiles. Total 192 birds.

            The question is, what is RCC? What speed, mass warhead?
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 6 December 2015 19: 13
            0
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Attention, question: Where to get 260 missiles? to repel an attack by aircraft carrier aircraft operating at a distance of 800-1000km from the carrier?

            Hehe hehe ... and this is just the first question.
            After all, there are still "subtle points": the range of operation of the air defense missile system at small and extremely small, the channeling of the air defense system, the flight time of the missile defense system to the target (i.e. mechanical reversal works in the sector 90 degrees), the time to capture and track a new target, etc., etc.
          3. Aqela
            Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 26
            0
            In your opinion, it turns out that each anti-aircraft installation is capable of firing only once? Some kind of bizarre and strange assumption ... No.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 December 2015 18: 57
        0
        Quote: kalach
        There’s a galaxy-sized hole in your logical chain: I’m pretty sure that the Americans had to pay not only for a dozen downed planes, but also for carriers and hundreds of other planes that were tormented by battleships all day.

        The problem is that aircraft carriers performed a much wider range of tasks than battleships. So just adding their value will fail - they were built not only against LK.

        At the same time, a number of tasks of AV LK simply could not be completed: attacking airfields, gaining air supremacy, reconnaissance, etc.
    2. Gani
      Gani 5 December 2015 10: 02
      +4
      I can not reasonably agree or refute the ideas of the author or Kaptsov because not at all in the subject, but I am inclined to believe that Nikita Dmitriev (author) is right - in KB specialists, counting ships, tend to trust mathematics more than fashion or romance and nostalgia, for sure, different options are calculated in the framework of calculations, judging by modern ships, the results are not in favor of the reservation.
      a waste of money when you count the cost of producing 18 or 10 carrier-based aircraft versus the cost of building one Yamato-class battleship.
      - and here you do not have the correct mathematics)) 1 battleship did not lose to 10 or 18 aircraft, but to 259 and 277, with deck ones, i.e. taking off from aircraft carriers and not one! and becoming like Dave Majumar of NI, I ask you who would win - 1 American carrier with carrier-based aircraft and his retinue against Musassi and several destroyers? )) and what is more expensive in production \ maintenance and what would be the loss? are there only 18 planes?
      1. Major_Vortex
        Major_Vortex 5 December 2015 10: 46
        +5
        Quote: Gani
        and here you do not have the correct mathematics)) 1 battleship did not lose to 10 or 18 aircraft, but to 259 and 277, with deck ones, i.e. taking off from aircraft carriers and not one! and becoming like Dave Majumar of NI, I ask you who would win - 1 American carrier with carrier-based aircraft and his retinue against Musassi and several destroyers? )) and what is more expensive in production \ maintenance and what would be the loss? are there only 18 planes?

        I showed the ratio of losses, to whom it is not clear what I gave the numbers. Heavy battleships had already won their best time at that time. Today, there are even more means to destroy such dreadnought and to sink a similar ship without any losses from the attacking side. If you correctly use all possible means, then the expensive huge armored ship has almost no chance to survive. The survivability of a warship, of course, must be ensured, duplicated, and defended important components and systems, but this is described in the article above.
        Regarding the death of Musashi and Yamato, I indicated the total number of aircraft involved in both operations against Japanese ships. In fact, both battleships were sunk by an even smaller number of aircraft. In both cases, a few hits were enough and ships with numerous crews sank. Heavy armor and excellent weapons did not save. Anyone interested in the details, they are all in the public domain. Who does not like to read, but likes to operate with short extracts from historical facts - my comment above is for them soldier
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 40
          0
          According to this logic, the tactics of using a modern missile destroyer should not differ in any way from the linear battles of the 18th century or the dashing raids of the Viking drakkar flotillas, and the battleship should be armed with smooth-bore cannons with cannonballs and all sorts of "knipples" ... However, quite a lot of time has passed since the 30th century, and the weapon system of a modern battleship should, in theory, differ from the Bismarck or Missouri ... If the battleship is the basis for batteries of modern cruise missiles, which, by the way , by themselves they are able to fly far and accurately, I do not require the indispensable use of aircraft carriers, then aircraft carriers begin to look like the "last century" ... According to this logic of reasoning, the flight of the F-20 to drop a couple of 18-kg bombs on some pier looks like a complete madhouse compared to a burst of 277-mm automatic ship's cannon for 155-5 OFS ...
          By the way, the combat radius of the F-18E Super Hornet = 726 km, not 1000. It will be larger only in the absence of any serious combat load ...
      2. Banshee
        Banshee 5 December 2015 13: 10
        +4
        Quote: Gani
        following up to Dave Majumaru from NI


        Oh, oh, oh ... Well, why is that? No one more like?

        I absolutely agree with you. The Yamato, of course, was cheaper than the crew that sawed it. But - quite expensive. And considering what losses the Americans suffered in this operation, everything paid off in one battle.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 December 2015 10: 31
      +4
      Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
      Today, the Internet is dominated by lovers of alternative history who dream of super armored superlinkers, but do not know the lessons of history.

      There is some. But why are you trying to join them?
      Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
      A waste of money when you count the cost of producing 18 or 10 carrier-based aircraft versus the cost of building one Yamato-class battleship.

      Obviously, you need to count not on destroyed planes, but on planes that struck. By themselves, 10-18 aircraft battleships would not have done anything.
      And then the arithmetic is simple - an attack of 227-250 aircraft could be provided by at least 4 aircraft carriers of the Essex type (in reality, 7 were hit by Yamato) This is already more expensive than a battleship (even without taking into account the cost of carrier-based aviation).
      In general, if your opponents are free to deal with facts, then this is not a reason for them to become like hi
      1. Banshee
        Banshee 5 December 2015 13: 13
        +3
        However, from an economic point of view, which is more profitable: 7 aircraft carriers (live dogs) or 1 drowned battleship (dead lion)?

        Now, if they could not drown the Yamato, then one thing. But since they solved their task at a low cost price (fuel + two dozen shot down planes), then ...

        In general, did anyone consider how much the Yamato table and his entourage and those who sawed it?

        Interesting numbers probably.
        1. TiRex
          TiRex 5 December 2015 21: 22
          +2
          if you bring 10 missile boats (even the ancient "Wasp" type) and one modern destroyer, then 40-80 missiles from them fired with a great degree of probability will sink it. This is not a reason to say that everything is nafig, we only build ancient wasps, they drowned ...
          And if Yamato or Musashi had a cover with aircraft carriers (escort group), then I think it would be completely different.
          you don’t have to consider the losses during the clash seven on one, if seven attack you on the street, then your losses will be significantly higher.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 5 December 2015 21: 56
            +2
            Quote: TiRex
            if you bring 10 missile boats (even the ancient "Wasp" type) and one modern destroyer, then 40-80 missiles

            Destroyer can provide Defense convoy in open sea areas or "remove" a satellite from orbit

            even Xnumx missile boats won't replace the destroyer
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 6 December 2015 19: 29
            0
            Quote: TiRex
            if you bring 10 missile boats (even the ancient "Wasp" type) and one modern destroyer, then 40-80 missiles from them fired with a great degree of probability will sink it.

            This experiment was already conducted in 1973 during the next Arab-Israeli. It turned out that even the EW launch craft of the early 70s type easily crushed the GOS RCC of the early 60s - 09.10.1973/5/15 Israeli missiles survived 5 salvos of the P-205 anti-ship missiles from 55 Egyptian missiles, etc. XNUMX. In general, out of XNUMX issued the Arabs of the missiles did not reach the goal.
    4. Alex
      Alex 5 December 2015 11: 22
      +1
      Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
      A waste of money when you count the cost of producing 18 or 10 carrier-based aircraft versus the cost of building one Yamato-class battleship.

      Small nuance: to destroy them, it took the construction costs of more than two and a half hundred aircraft. Plus the cost of airfields or aircraft carriers, which is also far from two pennies. I am not a great specialist in the military economy, but I think that the amounts will be comparable. Which in no way means the need to abandon some approaches in favor of others.
    5. dimonl
      dimonl 5 December 2015 11: 51
      0
      Slightly mistaken in the calculation of value. Costs need to be compared not only to 10 lost planes. And the whole group involved in the sinking of Yamato. After all, 10-18 aircraft would not have sunk these battleships.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 5 December 2015 13: 05
        +5
        Quote: dimonl
        After all, 10-18 aircraft would not have sunk these battleships.
        If "Yamato" and "Musashi" did not have their own armor, do not hesitate, they could well sink. In general, I do not understand the logic of people for whom any lack of armor protection is better than increasing the survivability of the ship and protecting the crew. How and how this can be done in modern conditions is another question, there are new technologies, new materials. In any case, a warship, especially a large one, should not sink like an "aluminum can" from shrapnel and unexploded "blanks", from light missiles and from the fire of small-caliber rapid-fire cannons. You can sink everything, the whole question is at what cost and for how long. I don't think that if our "Peter the Great" was a nuclear missile battleship (if it had better protection, at least for the lives of sailors), it would have made it worse, that armor would have become a minus for the ship. How many of the opponents of armor here would "proudly and wisely" refuse the "worthless" body armor before the battle? Probably not many, even a bulletproof vest with a low class of protection, if not from an armor-piercing bullet, then at least from fragments will protect. Why can't ships have their own protection class, especially since we are talking not only about protecting valuable military equipment, but also about protecting the function of performing a combat mission in time, protect the most priceless life of sailors ...
    6. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 5 December 2015 17: 38
      +1
      What kind of strange mathematics do you have, as if 10 planes flooded the battleship))) It may be worth comparing the price of a battleship with the price of 250 planes + the carrier from which they work + the ships belonging to the aircraft carrier group ...
      1. amba balamut 77
        amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 21: 49
        +2
        Yeah, hold + for arithmetic. A small amendment, 250 aircraft are three aircraft carriers of the time.
    7. yehat
      yehat 7 December 2015 00: 07
      0
      Yamato and Musashi drowned not only 2 hundreds of aircraft, but also a whole squadron of support for all this booth: aircraft carriers, escort ships, supply ships, reconnaissance ships, submarines. The total cost is already quite comparable with the cost of the battleship.
    8. Aqela
      Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 19
      0
      You still count the cost of the dropped bombs ... 18 + 10 ... And why not 259 + 227 (which also had to be built)? And why not + the construction of aircraft carriers, security ships, technical support ships, the cost of moving this armada to the war zone, quite remote from the United States? If you worked from land airports, then an estimate of 259 + 227 would be justified, but when working with aircraft carriers, other overhead costs should be added to the calculations.
  5. Lex.
    Lex. 5 December 2015 08: 23
    +7
    that 100 mm is enough to prevent a blast wave from breaking inside the case
    The armor will not help here if the Russian PCR itself can withstand a queue of 20 mm shells, then the fairing device is of a decent thickness
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 5 December 2015 08: 42
      11
      It's not even an armored w / h case! BOPS has a scrap mass of about 10 kg and a speed of about 1200 m / s, penetrates about a meter of armor, anti-ship missiles - a b / h mass of 300-500 kg and the same speed! With such an impact energy, even a wooden barrel / h will break these unfortunate 100 mm. smile
      IMHO
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 5 December 2015 08: 47
        +4
        With such impact energy, even a wooden b / h will break through these unfortunate 100 mm.

        Well, breaking through is unlikely to break through, but a blow could well damage the elements of the ship’s power set, causing deformation and loss of tightness.
        1. amba balamut 77
          amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 09: 38
          +8
          The teacher of the Russian Open Society said that when Mosquito hit the training firing, in the ship 4000 tons, the latter breaks down from the kinetic energy of the rocket
        2. APASUS
          APASUS 5 December 2015 12: 30
          +3
          Quote: Wedmak
          With such impact energy, even a wooden b / h will break through these unfortunate 100 mm.

          Well, breaking through is unlikely to break through, but a blow could well damage the elements of the ship’s power set, causing deformation and loss of tightness.

          It will break and even break it. A simple example of a Tornado, when the RCC hits, the loads are not comparable
          The most common and most inexplicable manifestation of a tornado is piercing hard objects with soft objects (straws pierce the boards, a chip pierces the tree trunk, the board passes through the wall of the house, through a thick steel sheet)
        3. kotvov
          kotvov 5 December 2015 13: 40
          +1
          Well, breaking through is unlikely to break through, but a hit could well damage the elements of the power set,
          too lazy to search, but anyone interested in google. there are interesting videos on the internet how modern missiles work against target ships. I remember the defeat of the target by the KINETIC warhead. I don’t think that the armor would have helped this goal much.
  6. engineer74
    engineer74 5 December 2015 08: 30
    +7
    The author is a little wrong, the main "dirty trick" of modern weapons is not "power" (in this case, mass and speed), but accuracy! You can book a ship and 400 mm around, but new guidance systems will appear and warheads will fly into the air intakes and gas ducts of the gas turbine engine (you cannot book them in principle) and a pressure surge destroy the compressor / turbine, you can demolish all antennas, optics, etc. with a directed stream of fragments. ., it is possible to undermine the warhead in the water at the propellers and rudders, it is possible at the side below the waterline, the result is the same - the destruction of the ship or a significant decrease in its combat capabilities! I'm not saying that booking on the ship is not necessary at all, but it should be within reasonable limits - to protect against secondary damaging factors, fragments of downed anti-ship missiles, in the event of an accident of our own missiles with a fall on the ship, stray missiles and RVV ... armor won't help! I think if today the task was to disable the Yamato-class ship, then no one would even bother much, they would modify the existing anti-ship missiles to hit the propellers and that would be the end of it!
    IMHO
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 5 December 2015 22: 41
      +2
      I think that they just planted a couple of modern torpedoes from a distance of fifty miles. hi
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 December 2015 19: 33
        +2
        Quote: sharp-lad
        I think that they just planted a couple of modern torpedoes from a distance of fifty miles

        Uh-huh ... a couple of "thick" torpedoes in the aft part - and then everyone is submissive and watching the circus performance "towing a super-battleship without rudder and propellers in the Pacific Ocean." smile
    2. Aqela
      Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 52
      0
      And here, by the way, a good, practical remark! I noted above about this: the weapons system and tactics of use in the 21st century should differ from the first 1/2 of the 20th, so the mass of these comparisons from historical events is simply not adequate, anyway, comparing a computer and an arithmometer is not I'm talking about abacus ...
  7. Dart2027
    Dart2027 5 December 2015 08: 31
    +1
    If we assume that the overall center of gravity of the armor will be somewhere above the center of gravity of the ship by about 5-10 m, then we will have to lay on the bottom a ballast of equal weight. This means that the weight does not increase by 2000, but by all 4000 tons.
    Why ballast? An enemy submarine will be a dangerous enemy for any ship, so you can put anti-torpedo protection (strengthening the hull and bulkheads) to mitigate the effects of a torpedo.
    Yes, and, again, lose track.
    If two or three knots, then do not give a damn and forget.
  8. Snail N9
    Snail N9 5 December 2015 08: 42
    +2
    I do not know why, but for some reason everyone "rested" on the "solid armor" in the form of sheets of monolithic steel. Well, is it really incomprehensible that no one will now "mold" solid steel on the sides of ships? Work on the development of armoring for ships is underway, no doubt, but the armoring will be in the form of light multilayer "sandwich panels", in addition, the "smooth" sides of modern "stealth" ships allow the use of "active" protection such as "blast panels" and the complex "arena" - work in this direction is also underway, do not hesitate.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 5 December 2015 08: 51
      +1
      In addition, the "smooth" sides of modern "stealth" -ships allow the use of "active" protection such as "explosive panels" and the "arena" complex for protection - work in this direction is also underway, do not hesitate.

      So why goat accordion then? You again go to active defense, not to armor. True, the RCC is not an RPG shot and not a tank BOPS, here to defeat an attacking rocket you need something more serious than the Arena and DZ on the sides.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 5 December 2015 09: 02
        +6
        Add! And KAZ and DZ implies the availability of sufficient reservation at the protected facility, because KAZ does not put trucks and DZ on BTR / BMP (ours) precisely because of the action of the KAZ striking elements and DZ blocks. If you make DZ from RCC, how much armor should be under it? Again 400-600 millimeters? Same eggs only in profile! what
        1. amba balamut 77
          amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 09: 45
          +1
          Everything seems to be so, but what about the storm wave, it will bring any KAZ and DZ from the smooth side that your cow is speaking.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 5 December 2015 10: 00
            +2
            she any KAZ and DZ from a smooth board licks that your cow tongue.

            Well, who's stopping her from closing her screens? Or make the body streamlined. Or, for that matter, embed it in the casing. These are multi-layer panels, directly from the remote sensing and individual segments with KAZ. It would be effective, but the waves, this is a solvable issue.
            1. amba balamut 77
              amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 10: 31
              +1
              You can come up with a designer like. But the price, it will rise. And the price is now the main scourge of any fleet. Nobody will pull such cases.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Aqela
              Aqela 10 December 2015 10: 55
              0
              Something is not clear to me: and how will this DZ work behind the screen? request what fool
        2. forumow
          forumow 5 December 2015 12: 16
          +1
          Quote: engineer74
          If you make DZ from RCC, how much armor should be under it? Again 400-600 millimeters?

          It depends on the distance of the KAZ ammunition from the protected object!
          1. engineer74
            engineer74 5 December 2015 13: 35
            +5
            And KAZ is easily transformed .... turns into an elegant air defense! smile
            1. Aqela
              Aqela 10 December 2015 11: 00
              0
              That's right! On the same tanks, they realized that passive protection (armor) and "semi-active" (dynamic) do not exclude active protection (all sorts of "Arenas" and means of knocking down ATGM guidance). It turns out that the use of the "Arena" is just an imitation of the ship's good air defense. Distances are just different and the need for guidance accuracy.
              And so ... According to the logic of other opponents, it remains only to put the destroyer on the caterpillar move ... Tactical and technological differences are simply ignored ...
  9. Wedmak
    Wedmak 5 December 2015 08: 43
    +5
    That's what I was talking about. And also, with an increase in the armor on the ships, immediately there will be anti-ship missiles with warheads of increased power, a tandem type, penetrating (100 mm armor against supersonic reinforced blanks? Pff .. cardboard sheet) and others. To increase the accuracy of the hit is not a problem, that with a decrease in the air defense of such a ship will simply turn it into an excellent training target. Yes, and such a rocket will cost anyway much cheaper than this floating armored car.
  10. podgornovea
    podgornovea 5 December 2015 08: 49
    +4
    In comparison with 2000 thousand tons of armor, the mass of one complex "Broadsword" or "Kortik" is less than 15 tons. The complex of fired interference PK-10 - 0,336 tons, PK-16 0,49 tons KT-308 is also probably not much more. It will take more than one, but the scale in terms of weight is still not comparable. Of course, they will still have to slightly increase the dimensions and rearrange the equipment. But this is not comparable to 2000 tons + 2000 tons of ballast. Of course you want "and condensed milk and honey, and you can do without bread!" but somehow you have to choose.
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 10 December 2015 11: 14
      0
      Not entirely correct comparison. All these devices will also need to be placed above the waterline, so balancing with ballast will also be needed. Besides, the same "Broadsword" has a recoil, which also requires, albeit small, but - accounting. In addition, the same "Broadsword" needs accounting for the mass of not only the installation itself, but also the ammunition load, the system for providing ammunition and supplying water for cooling, which must also be included in the ship's layout ... So modern air defense weapons are quadruple "maxims" not screwed somewhere to the floor or a sailor seated on a bollard with a light machine gun ...
  11. engineer74
    engineer74 5 December 2015 08: 51
    +1
    By the way, what kind of ship is in the photo for the article? The PU "Harpoons" and the Andreevsky Flag somehow look wildly ... Or are they not "Harpoons"?
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 5 December 2015 09: 04
      +2
      Quote: engineer74
      The "Harpoon" launcher and the Andreevsky Flag look somehow wild.

      Helicopter on site does not bother? smile
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 5 December 2015 09: 10
      +1
      Or is it not "Harpoons"?

      It is rather a PU X-35.
    3. Nikita Dmitriev
      5 December 2015 23: 36
      +4
      This is, in my opinion, one of the "Almazov" draft versions of the corvette pr.20385. Pu this is most likely URAN. In any case, I saw something like that in Almaz, but it didn't work out and returned to the classics. I just found the picture on the Internet. Liked. Published.
  12. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 5 December 2015 09: 03
    +1
    Or maybe a respected author can calculate the 20-30mm armor, which will protect the ship not from a direct hit by a rocket launcher, but from secondary rocket fragments, i.e. air defense shot down the missile, and its fragments continue to move toward the target, the engine is especially dangerous (there were precedents). In addition, with such armor, fire from boats is not terrible, otherwise losing a battle ship from the fire of dashing commandos is not a camillefo.
    PS: But Marat was skinned, but he survived even after the detonation of the cellar, therefore there was something else?
    1. Forest
      Forest 5 December 2015 12: 48
      0
      The same Arly Burke is protected from fragments by Kevlar sheets. It will not save from DShK, but it will keep the fragments.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 8 December 2015 10: 33
        0
        This is bulletproof armor, and I talked about rather massive parts such as the PCR engine, PCR head fairings and fragments, you need to protect the ship from them, and a patrol boat with a small-caliber gun for a missile cruiser is dangerous if it breaks into the effective range of its guns.
  13. kit_bellew
    kit_bellew 5 December 2015 09: 10
    +7
    Quote: engineer74
    You can book a ship and 400 mm around, but new navigation systems will appear and the warhead will fly into the air intakes and gas ducts of the gas turbine engine (you can’t reserve them in principle) and destroy the compressor / turbine with a pressure jump


    "A direct hit will cause a chain reaction that will destroy the Death Star." © General Jan Dodonna.
    "Trust your senses, Luke!" © Obi-Wan Kenobi.

    Huge request not to take this comment as a mockery. Just immediately reminded :))
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 5 December 2015 09: 18
      +4
      good "Everything has already been invented before us!" (C) - Young Padawan! wink
  14. Waltasar
    Waltasar 5 December 2015 09: 41
    +2
    As soon as the mass construction of the destroyer armor begins, rocket weapons will be finalized. Nato will replace the harpoons with missiles under the PU Tomahawk, and ours will finalize the head of the yacht, which is cheaper than the development and construction of dreadnoughts.
    For me, the game is not worth the candle.
  15. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 5 December 2015 09: 45
    +7
    good good good
    SUPER!
    I subscribe to every word !!! Here is a normal article of an adequately minded person! Which proves how the realities of modern military shipbuilding have changed. But you can’t change the uparths - they will all the same prove with foam from the mouth that they need to pull thousands of tons of worthless steel with them, because they still live and think in categories of half a century ago and are on the same development with peers in the sandbox!
    No one denies the need for armor, but within reasonable limits and with reasonable goals. This is now being embodied in the Navy. If possible, the most significant compartments are booked on the basis of the weighted load frames. Give them as before laughing Kindergarten!!!
    Here are just comrade Kaptsov and his comrades with such a denouement of events and the involvement of people really working in the field of shipbuilding will not agree, because this fundamentally destroys their beloved and cherished opportunity and usefulness of the total reservation of modern destroyers and frigates.
    So, we are waiting, with a new portion of refutations and the evidence base of the opposite, using warped data, photographs of randomness (and not patterns), the substitution of concepts, etc.
    My personal opinion is that booking is present on ships, but within reasonable limits and based on the possible framework of weight loads, cost, and necessity. But not in the perverted concept and making apologists for battleships and cruisers of a bygone era ... You just need to come to terms with this and take modern realities as a given ... smile hi
    The author is five with a bunch of pluses !!!
  16. common man
    common man 5 December 2015 10: 04
    +4
    I am not an engineer of ship systems, (just an engineer), therefore I will not argue with the author. Just a few comments in terms of common sense.
    1. "How will we book". If by creating a citadel we can protect the crew and the main life support systems, but do not save the radars, weapons, superstructures, then such a "nafik" ship is not needed. In such cases, I always remember our super-duper modern tank Armatu. The highest protection for equipment, armored capsule. The rest, the tower, the transmission, is secondary. Rescue a crew of three from the tank. even if the tank is out of action, this is important. And at the ship, if it can no longer use weapons, then let the crew of 300-400 people perish?
    PS And combat posts have long been located deep in the hull, and not on the navigation bridge. Or not?
    2. And, of course, as much as possible air defense. An increase in air defense is also not a frail increase in size, displacement, but even more cost. And the massive use of light anti-ship missiles will break through any air defense. And again the comparison with tanks. According to your idea "we will hang a lot of active protection on the Octopus, and Armata is not needed."
    3. Consider the methods of defeat. The author gathered in one pile speed, mass and maneuverability. I have spoken out before, I repeat. Imagine a rocket weighing 4-5 tons (warhead weight 400 kg) flying at a speed of 4-5 M (1000 m / s) and making a slide in front of the ship? Yes, still flying exactly into the porthole of the ship commander. She just does not reach the ship. RCCs are light, such as Grpuna, X-35, with a definitely not armor-piercing warhead weighing 250 kg, and a speed of less than 1000 km / h. And there are thousands of such missiles. There are medium and heavy ones, such as Onyx, Caliber, Basalt, and of course Granite. High-explosive warhead or armor-piercing warhead, weighing 400-700 kg, speed 2-2,5 M. And there are dozens of such missiles, at best a hundred or two. And clearly low maneuverability. By the way, many cite the example of Granites and Volcanoes, and forget that their goal was 100000 tons of Nimitsa, and not 12000 tons of Berks.
    In short, if a reasonable reservation saves the crew’s life and leaves the ship afloat, you need to book it. If it helps to maintain combat stability from the use of small-caliber weapons, both missile and cannon, then you need to book. Of course it’s rational, and not like some immediately throw themselves to extremes, the armor is 300 mm, which means a displacement of 50000 tons and guns of 400 mm.
    1. amba balamut 77
      amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 10: 44
      +1
      A few notes on your findings:
      1. The crew is not sitting in a capsule like a tank Armata. So you need to book the entire ship in order to save the crew.
      2. The best defense against small-caliber weapons are their own rockets and art systems. Even thin armor (capable of protecting against 30 mm of projectile) will increase the cost, so that any frigate becomes gold. hi
      1. common man
        common man 5 December 2015 13: 09
        0
        Quote: amba balamut 77
        The crew is not sitting in a capsule like a tank Armata. So you need to book the entire ship in order to save the crew.

        in the current state of automation, it is possible to place the crew in 2-3 spaced armored capsules-casemates.
        But in general. The main dangers of ships are fire and sinking. Although, if the ship partially burned out and did not drown, and the crew is alive, this is already an achievement. Therefore, if the reservation allows you to maintain the buoyancy of the ship, it makes sense to apply. If not, then there is nothing to bother.
        1. Nikita Dmitriev
          5 December 2015 15: 51
          +3
          Who will fight for survivability in the compartments? It is necessary to react within a minute (to extinguish the fire, to close up the breakdown), but for now you will reach the ship from the citadel to the place of defeat. And the degree of automation needed for such a ship is VERY expensive thing.
    2. common man
      common man 5 December 2015 11: 02
      0
      If you will, a couple more comments.
      The first dogma. Not one armor will save from Granite RCC.
      Second, the aircraft carrier is the main striking force. His aircraft will sink EVERYTHING.
      Question. A lot of carrier-based aircraft can carry RCC type Granite?
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 5 December 2015 12: 02
      0
      Quote: man in the street
      In short, if a reasonable reservation saves the crew’s life and leaves the ship afloat, you need to book it.

      The bottom line is probably that the capabilities of the industry in terms of counteracting reservations have grown significantly, in the case of the appearance of armored ships, means of destruction will appear, you can trace the evolution of tanks where the increase in armor began to be replaced by dynamic protection, then added active.
  17. sergo1914
    sergo1914 5 December 2015 10: 21
    +2
    The article is a plus. For a modern ship, bulletproof / anti-shatter booking is relevant. It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep RCC with an armored belt.
  18. Taoist
    Taoist 5 December 2015 10: 21
    +4
    Well, finally, it’s consolidated as they say from a specialist. However, all the arguments given here to Oleg and his "support group" have been repeatedly presented (perhaps not so concentrated). Doesn't work ... Because "armadillos are love" which means that the feeling is irrational and does not obey logical calculations ... ;-) So we are waiting for the "empire to strike back" and stock up on popcorn ...
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 5 December 2015 10: 30
      +3
      laughing good It is interesting only on what evidence will now be based - Kaptsov was already looking for the right weight in rivets with radars, and in the lineup ... repeat
    2. Sling
      Sling 8 December 2015 12: 57
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Doesn't work ... Because "armadillos are love" which means that the feeling is irrational and does not obey logical calculations ... ;-)


      Scientists put the monkey in a closed room and, when she pressed a special button, she was given a sip of sweet juice. Press the button - you get a reward. Everything worked perfectly, the monkeys instantly figured out the connection. Scientists were interested in the monkey’s brain and how it glowed with pleasure when the monkey received its sweet reward.

      And then scientists noticed that the monkey begins to have fun before drinking the juice. The monkey’s brain is already happy when it presses a button, and even earlier. It worked dopamine - a hormone of anticipation.

      The strange thing began when they stopped giving juice. You press the button - but there is no juice. The animals stopped receiving the reward, but continued to press the button. They continued to press the button even when the room was opened and they could exit. Even when there were other monkeys nearby. And every time the stubborn animals pressed a button, their brains flourished: a foretaste of pleasure! Everything will be now! Dopamine! Dopamine! Dopamine!
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 10 December 2015 11: 25
        0
        By the way, dopamine secretion is also stimulated by tobacco smoking. So any smoker is such a monkey. As you go out, look around: all people with a cigarette are such monkeys. Only at least this monkey was drinking sweet and healthy juice before it, and smokers swallowed smoke with tar, not useful nicotine and harmful carbon monoxide. fool negative
        This is so, for information ... request hi
  19. UNAUTHORIZED
    UNAUTHORIZED 5 December 2015 10: 27
    +3
    As a techie, I got aesthetic pleasure from the article. There would be more of them.
  20. kvs207
    kvs207 5 December 2015 10: 33
    +3
    Explanatory article. Local easy booking, I think, is the best option. The time of the battleships has irrevocably gone. This is reminiscent of the period of history when firearms appeared and very protected knights are a thing of the past.
    1. amba balamut 77
      amba balamut 77 5 December 2015 10: 49
      +1
      The Yankees covered Kevlar MO and cellars on frigates O. Perry. Not very expensive, and from a crazy fragment the ship will not share the fate of Hood.
    2. common man
      common man 5 December 2015 10: 53
      +2
      Quote: kvs207
      when firearms and very protected knights appeared, they were a thing of the past.

      And then came bulletproof vests and everything returned to square one.
      1. kotvov
        kotvov 5 December 2015 13: 49
        0
        And then came bulletproof vests and everything was back to square one. ,,
        this is a fundamentally new technology. speed, I am sure, a new weapon will appear stitching and body armor, or incapacitating, the fighter himself.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 5 December 2015 14: 05
          +1
          Quote: kotvov
          Soon, I'm sure a new weapon will appear stitching and body armor

          Why would she appear? Everything has been around for a long time. A bullet from a sniper rifle will sew through a bulletproof vest for eleven meters. Nevertheless, it is better to fight with him than without him.
  21. Archon
    Archon 5 December 2015 10: 48
    +1
    It seems to me that a powerful reservation will return in the distant future, when wars in space begin.

    By the way, is it really possible to make additional armor like on tanks - anti-cumulative grilles, chains, etc.?
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 5 December 2015 11: 18
      +5
      Quote: Archon
      It seems to me that a powerful reservation will return in the distant future, when wars in space begin.

      By the way, is it really possible to make additional armor like on tanks - anti-cumulative grilles, chains, etc.?

      Chains and grates? Much without them! B / h of anti-ship missiles is tens and hundreds of times more powerful than b / h of ATGMs and RPGs, respectively, the strength of the grate and its removal from the side will also "slightly" change - the grating will be out of the rails 5-10 meters from the side! wassat I, in that case, for the armor! And yes, the "rails" must be composite or ceramic - "stealth" anyway! wink
      And in space everything is the same, but the speed of the striking elements is from 7km / s (when launched from the Earth on an orbital target) so armor is simply necessary, 10-15 meters thick, however, the speed square is!laughing
      Sorry if offended ... hi
      1. forumow
        forumow 5 December 2015 12: 37
        +1
        Quote: engineer74
        And in space everything is the same, but the speed of the striking elements is from 7km / s (when launched from the Earth on an orbital target) so armor is simply necessary, 10-15 meters thick, however, the speed square is!

        Metal asteroids are relevant as hulls for combat "starships"!
        1. engineer74
          engineer74 5 December 2015 12: 57
          0
          good Estimate the mass of the "metal asteroid" and the thrust of the engines in order to steer them somehow! Antigrav, etc. do not use, since we have kinetic means of destruction, then we use available technologies! laughing
          1. forumow
            forumow 5 December 2015 13: 09
            +1
            You can't do without a "supportless" (non-reactive) propulsion unit!
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 December 2015 19: 42
          +1
          Quote: forumow
          Metal asteroids are relevant as hulls for combat "starships"!

          A long time ago, in a distant, distant country, Vsevolod Martynenko published the magazine "Fighting Cat". And just there was an article about the ideal ship "ZV":
          A space combat vehicle must have an appropriate margin of safety. Scatter from the blow provided by the house of cards. A civilian ship, following a cleared track, can still be built on the principle of detail assembly, but it is advisable to assemble an apparatus designed for battle inside a sufficiently strong and refractory asteroid (or spray a layer of rock on a prepared matrix frame). Twenty-thirty-meter, interspersed with cushioning layers of armor will protect from the beam, and from the impact, and from the direct hit of a small nuclear bomb. And sensors, locators and weapons can be mounted in easily replaceable modules on the surface.

          (c) ALICE STAN / STAR WARS AND EARTH CALCULATION / 16.2.89
      2. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 5 December 2015 23: 03
        +1
        All satellites are "armored" by a spaced-apart hull that covers the most important parts. The work of striking bodies at such speeds is very different from their own work at speeds three times lower, unfortunately, an accurate description of all physical processes pulls the article, and my specialization is short and super short comments hi .
      3. Archon
        Archon 6 December 2015 16: 37
        0
        yes, normally, in general, lattices and chains are associated more with orcs than with something real.
      4. Aqela
        Aqela 10 December 2015 11: 29
        0
        I don’t think that the gratings will be used - the hydrodynamic resistance is too large, but the external screens or additional enclosures of the trimaran for placing protective sections and anti-aircraft installations look quite logical to themselves ... yes
  22. Kars
    Kars 5 December 2015 10: 50
    +1
    But, again, this is not the main thing. These 1500-2000 t armor will be located above the center of gravity and accordingly affect stability. This weight must be compensated, and a simple equivalent increase in displacement here is not enough. Have to put the ballast

    They make an elephant out of flies)) There are no agreements governing the displacement of warships. Ballast is full of heavy elements, the same hydraulic ramming system is strengthened, additional fuel tanks, etc. fantasy should only be used.
    And in the article I didn’t see whether the author replaces the replaceable structural material in the weight of the armor. The armor should not be hinged, but should be included in the body kit and should be in place of the skin.
  23. UNAUTHORIZED
    UNAUTHORIZED 5 December 2015 10: 55
    +2
    [quote = Archon] It seems to me that a powerful reservation will return in the distant future, when wars in space begin.

    How do you imagine booking at space speeds.
    1. forumow
      forumow 5 December 2015 12: 51
      +1
      Against kinetic weapons, cosmic distances, even at appropriate speeds, leave a lot of time for organizing counter-actions - variations on the themes of missile defense, KAZ. But from energy weapons (combat lasers) armor will help! Although it is likely to be very different from our usual one. The winner is the one who lasts longer under enemy fire. Thin-walled aircraft-like constructions, which fill the imagination of authors with the works of modern cinema science fiction, will be destroyed in thousands, if not millions, of kilometers. from the enemy. Nowhere to hide in space!
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 5 December 2015 13: 17
        +1
        Energy weapons are an interesting thing, you can use an optical or infrared laser, then the armor will help, you can use a directed beam of neutrons, and the armor will no longer help, you can use electrons, and the armor will kill the crew with secondary radiation ...
        So in star wars there is hardly a place for heat-treated high-alloy steel plates! There will certainly be some kind of protection, but it’s premature to discuss it a little ... smile
        1. forumow
          forumow 5 December 2015 13: 46
          +2
          Quote: engineer74
          can a directed neutron beam

          And how to direct and focus neutrons? They are electrically neutral!
          1. engineer74
            engineer74 5 December 2015 14: 10
            +1
            I have no idea how this is done in the future! But in the articles on the initiation of nuclear chain reactions, the concept of "neutron bunch" appears, which means they somehow direct and focus! wink
            1. Aqela
              Aqela 10 December 2015 11: 40
              0
              Well, to use a neutron beam at a distance of a couple of meters for research purposes or even to initiate a "vigorous bonba" is one thing, but to provide a beam at a combat distance with sufficient energy density is quite another. In addition, a layer of polyethylene with an external mirror coating will help. The neutron will absorb, the laser will reflect. If there is somehow a more advanced material, then the mechanical properties can be excellent. Here, alloy steel, as a component of combined protection, the basis of metal-ceramic layers, may become appropriate.
      2. Aqela
        Aqela 10 December 2015 11: 35
        0
        According to your logic, a salvo of lasers can be: 1) reflected, 2) absorbed by an aerosol or refractory spray. In addition, the laser beam has the property of scattering, so that it will occupy an area comparable to the Moon's orbit for a "mulion versts", so the impact energy density will not damage the cockroach, well, maybe let me read a newspaper with convenience ...
        So not everything is so simple and obvious.
  24. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 5 December 2015 11: 13
    +3
    Battleships, like armored knights, went into legend ..) Although modern materials seem to make the future soldier look like a medieval knight. In the case of ships, with a dispute between a shield and a sword, armor and a shell, the armor lost. I think in a hundred years, surface, warships will disappear and there will be submarines capable of solving the whole range of tasks that several classes of surface ships now carry out. Trying to imagine the future, we always operate on the ideas that are currently available, often forgetting that a new invention, a breakthrough in science and technology can turn everything overnight.
    Py.Sy. My force field generator is dead and you have nowhere to charge it hi
    1. avva2012
      avva2012 5 December 2015 13: 07
      +1
      I think in a hundred years, surface, warships will disappear and there will be submarines capable of solving the whole range of tasks that several classes of surface ships now carry out.
      I have little doubt that surface ships will disappear. Apparently, there will be some kind of force fields, protective "clouds" with nano-explosives, and so on. All the same. surface and submarine fleets, solve completely different tasks. If in one case it is a sword, then in another it is a shield.
  25. Mantykora
    Mantykora 5 December 2015 11: 27
    +1
    Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
    who dream of super armored superlinkors, but do not know the lessons of history

    Not only stories, but also physics.

    Thanks to the author, it was very interesting to read, adequately, cleverly and simply everything was described. Today's realities of naval battles are not the same as 70 years ago. Super-armored battleships are already a thing of the past, and it’s possible that aircraft carriers, too ... just collisions of technically different opponents haven’t been around for a long time to prove this (and thank God).

    As I understand it today, the competition "armor against a projectile" was transferred to the plane "projectile + electronic warfare of the projectile, the armor itself is secondary."
  26. avva2012
    avva2012 5 December 2015 11: 35
    +3
    You can throw stones at me. But, I get the impression that in modern warfare, without the use of strategic nuclear weapons, the use of tactical nuclear weapons of limited power is not excluded. I do not think that if one aircraft carrier group is covered by the same "Caliber", then after that, the United States will start a full-scale nuclear war of destruction. Most likely, they will respond in kind and sit down at the negotiating table. I apologize, but what kind of reservation will it hold in this case? The main thing is not to allow such a warhead to reach a ship formation up to a certain distance. Therefore, air defense systems are the best armor.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 5 December 2015 12: 09
      +3
      Oddly enough, armored ships of the WWII times showed high resistance to nuclear weapons - full-scale tests were carried out both here and in the States. Only in the modern case, an armored "shell" can and will withstand a shock wave, but all external devices (radar, OLS, PU, ​​communication antennas, ZPRK) will be disabled by the entire set of damaging factors, and partial "death" of electronics from EMP and gamma is also possible - radiation. After that, the combat value of the modern "battleship" will be about zero, but the "slightly" irradiated team will be intact, which will need immediate help!
      Regarding the "limited" nuclear war - according to the press, limited (both in theater of operations and in the number of strikes) nuclear conflicts were simulated - a "window" for negotiations appeared only when the entire SNF ammunition was shot, though it is not very clear who, with whom, what and how would these "negotiations" be conducted ... hi
      1. avva2012
        avva2012 5 December 2015 12: 21
        +1
        I, I think, to strategic nuclear weapons, things will not come. They used nuclear weapons, we shot down their missile. We applied, they did not bring down. Depending on the damage on both sides, that is, who is better able to shoot down flying missiles, they will agree. The concept of limited nuclear conflict has been developed for a long time. There is an understanding that there are no absolute remedies. Therefore, the application of this concept in life is doubtful today.
        1. engineer74
          engineer74 5 December 2015 12: 30
          +1
          They used nuclear weapons, we shot down their missile. We applied, they did not bring down.

          There is only one "zakavyka", the shot down tactical missile does not say that it is with TNW, therefore, "fun" will follow after the first good luck application of nuclear weapons. An immediate retaliatory strike will follow, then a "response to response", in the zone of a "limited" nuclear conflict, available targets end, but it is necessary to "respond" symmetrically, other nearby targets are selected, the theater of operations expands - there is no time to negotiate stupidly!wink
          Something like this... hi
          1. avva2012
            avva2012 5 December 2015 12: 37
            +2
            Well, about "fun", everyone can guess. Therefore, there is a war of nerves. "I know that you know that I know." We need to put ourselves in such a way that none of our "partners" have a thought that if something happens, we will be afraid to use TNW. If so, then we will come to an agreement, divide the areas of responsibility, etc. hi
      2. IS-80
        IS-80 5 December 2015 17: 24
        +1
        Quote: engineer74
        though it is not very clear who, with whom, about what and how these "negotiations" would be conducted ...

        Putin from a bunker near Yamantau and Obama from a bunker near Cheyenne. laughing
    2. Banshee
      Banshee 5 December 2015 13: 19
      +2
      Quote: avva2012
      The United States will launch a full-scale nuclear war of annihilation. Most likely, they will answer the same, and sit down at the negotiating table.


      Hmm ... and who will sit down with whom at the "negotiating table"? Rats with cockroaches?

      Sorry, there is such a struggle for world peace is that hell will understand how it all ends. But already in the realities of a nuclear war of annihilation ...

      Rats, cockroaches, spiders and fruit flies.
      1. avva2012
        avva2012 5 December 2015 13: 38
        +1
        Hmm ... and who will sit down with whom at the "negotiating table"? Rats with cockroaches?
        There will be no nuclear war to destroy. I am writing about possible the use of nuclear weapons in a military conflict. Radioactive contamination with the use of ulcers in warhead cruise missiles is unlikely to be more than after Fukushima.
      2. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 5 December 2015 23: 13
        +1
        When using nuclear arsenals, there is a risk of provoking geological processes of such intensity that cockroaches cannot survive! So better drinks Than angry !
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 December 2015 19: 44
        0
        Quote: Banshee
        Hmm ... and who will sit down with whom at the "negotiating table"? Rats with cockroaches?

        Mavericks-cockroaches with ant collectivists. And a new round of West-East confrontation will begin. smile
  27. family tree
    family tree 5 December 2015 11: 51
    +2
    An explanatory article, I read with pleasure. Booking of ships, in my opinion, amateurish, opinion, went to another world, at the beginning of the last century. Already in the Second World War, the battleships did not have any special achievements in terms of price-effectiveness ratio what
    PS. It is necessary that they do not hold the blow, and that the blow does not reach, the armor takes away the mass from the weapon, especially from the parry blow.
    zzy. The author and commentators intentionally forgot about torpedoes, focusing on RCC what and comparing armored ships с tanks belay (and why not with attack helicopters and airplanes repeat , like a closer look, "fifth ocean", after all)
    zzzy. 100mm, nonche, for the ship is not armor, and so, about nothing, actually.
  28. serverny
    serverny 5 December 2015 12: 40
    +2
    The author puts an equal sign in penetrating power between RCC and battleship calibers - what is this blatant illiteracy and spheroconin?

    Apparently using the same spheroscopic technologies, immediately ALL existing anti-ship missiles turned into supersonic when in fact this is a false statement.

    The vast majority of anti-ship missiles are still light, subsonic, with unarmored warheads. And it is precisely them in case of conflict that the air defense of ship groups of the Russian Federation / India / China will be overcome / oversaturated. It is from them that the main threat emanates, and from them the constructive protection of ships should be improved so that a hit of a pair of harpoons does not remove the destroyer from the battle.

    No one, including the ever-memorable Kaptsov, is calling for the return of the classic battleships, as simple-minded people like to simplify. It’s just that aluminum tins that can be put out of action even with fragments of a downed rocket do not seem to me adequate ships designed to fight with an equal enemy - they are more likely ganshipy for colonial wars, which should never come under fire.

    Of the modern ships of the Western fleets, only aircraft carriers have some kind of combat stability - and destroyers are recorded in consumables, along with their crews. And to focus on their colonial ideology is the height of stupidity - we economically cannot afford to rivet disposable destroyers worth $ 600 million apiece.
    1. family tree
      family tree 5 December 2015 13: 04
      +3
      Quote: serverny
      I just don’t see aluminum cans that can be damaged even by fragments of a downed rocket by adequate ships,

      Don't you simplify yourself? "Aluminum tin" capable of withstanding the impact of a wave and unable to withstand the fragments of a downed, subsonic anti-ship missile system? It seems like not an elderly river vessel, which has frames, you can count through the skin what
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 December 2015 19: 56
      0
      Quote: serverny
      The vast majority of anti-ship missiles are still light, subsonic, with unarmored warheads.

      Uh-huh ... so unarmored that the standard round for the same "phalanx" or "goalkeeper" is a sub-caliber shell. But the main method of dealing with anti-ship missiles in these ZAK is warhead detonation.
      If we take the same "Harpoon", then it has a penetrating warhead WDU-18 / B and a deceleration fuse.
  29. sergo1914
    sergo1914 5 December 2015 13: 00
    -1
    Quote: serverny
    The vast majority of anti-ship missiles are still light, subsonic, with unarmored warheads.


    You are mistaken. This is not a SAM or ATGM.
  30. forumow
    forumow 5 December 2015 13: 05
    +1
    You ALL forget that you have to fight not only against a high-tech enemy armed with anti-ship missiles and aviation, but also against all sorts of irregular but numerous formations that are an unaffordable luxury to beat with long-range guided missiles. And not all units of a strong enemy have heavy weapons - there are a lot of "light" forces. Of course, large battleships, not to mention dreadnoughts, are superfluous here. But armored gunboats with artillery weapons, in coastal areas and large rivers, will not interfere!
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 5 December 2015 23: 19
      0
      And the worse is a frigate with a 130 mm gun. beating this easy trifle from a distance of 30 -40 kilometers? And on the approach, shock drones armed with inexpensive, moderately accurate, short-range rackets.
      1. forumow
        forumow 6 December 2015 08: 26
        0
        Quote: sharp-lad
        And what is bad about a frigate

        Probably the same as self-propelled guns in comparison with tanks. If the first could solve everything, the second wouldn’t be.
        At ranges of 30 -40 km, even with a spotter (UAV), it is advisable to use guided projectiles, which is not much cheaper than an SD. Second: for a gunboat, these are 30 - 40 km. They can start from the place where the unarmored ship will simply not dare to approach, fearing an unexpected strike, but will risk it - with a high probability it will "collapse".
        A drone UAV is not a competitor of artillery, like aviation in general!
  31. kvs207
    kvs207 5 December 2015 13: 46
    0
    Quote: man in the street
    And then came bulletproof vests and everything returned to square one.

    Naturally. Eternal dispute - shock-protection (shell-armor). Maybe the ships armor (protection) will return in a new form and with new qualities. This is not necessarily steel.
  32. UNAUTHORIZED
    UNAUTHORIZED 5 December 2015 15: 08
    +2
    Maybe it’s not quite the topic, but the opposition of the AUG is always relevant. Suppose a strike is delivered by three missiles with a nuclear warhead. The first fires in the far air defense zone destroying AWACS aircraft or ozonizing the air counteracts their work. The second one follows the given program without being distracted by electronic warfare and destroys melee AUG locators. The third turns the ships into floating targets (those that survived) I'm not served, it's in my it is written to nike, but how do you like this situation
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 5 December 2015 19: 10
      0
      Rave. The blow is delivered by one missile. There are 10 warheads on the rocket. This is for a start.
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 5 December 2015 23: 23
        0
        AUG ballistic missile? So far, only the Chinese have done. And then pseudo-ballistic.
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 6 December 2015 16: 45
          0
          The Chinese did on the basis of operational tactical. Without separation of the BB.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 December 2015 20: 00
          0
          Quote: sharp-lad
          AUG ballistic missile? So far, only the Chinese have done.

          R-27K.
  33. unknown
    unknown 5 December 2015 15: 27
    +1
    Of course, an eternal argument.
    If you focus on the Navy, the history of the development of the class of cruisers is very revealing.
    It would seem that the turbine buried the reservation. The first scouts are armless. Then a short belt appears. Then its length increases, it covers not only cars and boilers, but also the cellar.
    Then rollback-Washington cartons. And all over again. On "Blucher" the belt is the longest.

    PS By the way, Russian armored decks of the first rank, contrary to the general circulation opinion, showed themselves very well. When developing the program for the post-war development of the fleet, it was their characteristics that the Japanese accepted for the development of the scout project.
  34. Androsh
    Androsh 5 December 2015 19: 21
    +1
    Something that many are opposed to trimarans, but my personal opinion is that they have a future. It has more advantages compared to conventional ships. For example, the width of the medium-sized ships is increased, so you can place more weapons, more armor. Also, by installing three engines and three steering wheels, you can increase its speed and maneuverability, it will be able to turn around on the spot. Sinking the trimaran will be much more difficult, due to its greater stability and buoyancy, respectively, and more people will survive. Plus, the main body will be protected by side casings.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 6 December 2015 16: 49
      0
      For such a monster, respectively. power point. Nuclear. And even two. Less to the armor. Plus the requirements for personnel.
      1. pimen
        pimen 6 December 2015 17: 34
        +1
        why so?
        First, the trimaran is shorter in length. Secondly, why not use hydrofoils to lift the body out of the water by a meter or two; perhaps it is even advisable to close all the cases on the bottom to the circuit. I already wrote about minus ballast. In principle, there is also another option, when outriggers with engines sit deeper than the main hull, then when lifting to the wing, the middle hull will rise even higher, although a relatively large ship should not completely get out of the water
  35. kvs207
    kvs207 5 December 2015 19: 34
    0
    Quote: Androsh
    many are opposed to trimarans, but my personal opinion is that they have a future. It has more advantages compared to conventional ships. For example, the width of the medium-sized ships is increased, so you can place more weapons, more armor. Also, by installing three engines and three steering wheels, you can increase its speed and maneuverability, it will be able to turn around on the spot. Sinking the trimaran will be much more difficult, due to its greater stability and buoyancy, respectively, and more people will survive. Plus, the main body will be protected by side casings.

    Look at the trimaran in section and you will see that two additional cases carry an auxiliary function. Their business is to ensure stability and no more. Full-size enclosures will increase wave impedance so much that engine power is needed, just huge.
    1. pimen
      pimen 5 December 2015 21: 27
      0
      but look differently: outriggers, with some reservations, can take on the role of an armored belt, and the overall stability of the scheme will save on ballast, a deck above the water (without a superstructure) can be not booked at all
  36. erofich
    erofich 5 December 2015 19: 52
    0
    It doesn't look like a constructor. I am in the kitchen, in the company, so I think, a bunch of bugs is drunk, but he is sober! I do not agree with you, comrade!
  37. Alisher
    Alisher 5 December 2015 20: 06
    +1
    Good article. It is reasonably stated why it does not make sense to completely or intensely book large ships, especially when confronted with a technologically equal enemy.
    But I have a question, is there a situation where a ballistic reservation for some small ships makes sense? For example, the enemy does not have, or has already spent, the stockpile of anti-ship missiles captured by him (terrorists, pirates, ISIS, small states, etc.). He has barrel, rocket artillery, tanks and speedboats, as well as MANPADS and ATGMs. There are also civilians on the coast, firing points and positions can be disguised among buildings. Tasks: landing, posting ships with gum. help, the passage between the islands, in the skerries, through the Bosphorus at last.
  38. grandfather_Kostya
    grandfather_Kostya 5 December 2015 21: 04
    0
    "Armor" as thick as paper is also a way out - all missiles and shells fly "without noticing" the collision.
  39. Shteffan
    Shteffan 5 December 2015 21: 09
    +2
    Quote: Mayor_Vikhr
    A rare article for its adequacy. Today, the Internet is dominated by fans of alternative history who dream of super armored super battleships, but do not know the lessons of history. Japanese super-battleships of the Second World War, possessing excellent armor and weapons, "Musashi" and "Yamato" were successfully sunk by enemy carrier-based aircraft. Musashi sank 259 torpedo bombers and dive bomber of which losses amounted to 18 airplanes. And Yamato sent 227 American deck aircraft to the bottom, with the loss of the Americans amounted to 10 aircraft. A waste of money when you count the cost of producing 18 or 10 carrier-based aircraft versus the cost of building one Yamato-class battleship.

    The article is adequate ???? where have you seen such anti-ship missiles up to 400kg warheads and a speed of 1 km / s ??? (series P - does not count) please read out the list. The author "floats." Second: how much is needed, really, AUG now to fill up monsters ?? And who in the world can put up so much, in the world (the USA does not count)? replace barbets with UVP missiles for 300-500 anti-aircraft missiles and anti-aircraft missiles and put air defense systems at 200-250 km + guard destroyers. these floating "islands"? what will you bring down, plastic axes and harpoons ??
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 6 December 2015 20: 08
      0
      Quote: Steffan
      replace barbets at UVP missiles with 300-500 pcr and anti-aircraft and put air defense missiles at km 200-250 + guards destroyers

      Oh, these dreams about long-range sea air defense systems ...
      Earth - it is, in fact, round. And because of this, 250 km of range at MV and PMV degenerate at 25-30. And then - dry statistics: RCC speed, SAM rate, the probability of a pair being hit, the number of SAM systems, the switching time between targets.
      Quote: Steffan
      And what will you do with these floating "islands"? What will you bring down with plastic axes and harpoons ??

      Or another modification of "harpoons" with some kind of optical seeker of the correlation type, which allows hitting the vulnerable spots of the aircraft, which the same "Yamato" had to hell.
      Or a combined attack: in the first echelon, light and maneuverable PRRs with a radio fuse and warheads with tungsten GGE, which will work at antenna posts, will go. And behind them, on the blinded LK and the escort, the usual anti-ship missiles will work off the hill. Shaft covers, chimneys, hangar - there are a lot of vulnerabilities.
      The third option is long-range torpedoes.
      1. yehat
        yehat 7 December 2015 21: 02
        0
        the optics in the guidance heads are easily counteracted by primitive and cheap countermeasures such as foil or smoke.
  40. Olfred
    Olfred 5 December 2015 21: 41
    +1
    huge author +. It’s nice to read interesting articles that are not written by couch analysts, but by a person who knows and works in this field hi
  41. Termit1309
    Termit1309 6 December 2015 02: 54
    +1
    Quote: engineer74
    The author is a little wrong, the main "dirty trick" of modern weapons is not "power" (in this case, mass and speed), but accuracy! You can book a ship and 400 mm around, but new guidance systems will appear and the warhead will fly into the air intakes and gas ducts of the GTE

    What for? It is enough to teach a rocket to make a slide and to hit from above. The deck area is much larger than the area of ​​the prono-belt and it is located higher. It is IMPOSSIBLE to effectively shield a ship from an attack from above with armor.
    This was counted back in the 40s by the Germans in their superlinkor projects. Displacement exceeded 100 tons and the thickness of the armored deck was still not enough. Actually, that's why they stopped building battleships. We decided that if it was impossible to provide adequate protection, then why spend money.
  42. voldemar_k
    voldemar_k 6 December 2015 03: 02
    +1
    How about spaced-out, tank-like chobham combo armor? In addition, the armored ship has an increased hull rigidity. Let it not protect from a direct hit from a rocket, but it will reduce the affected area. Again, having lost even a part of the superstructures, the structural frame of the hull will remain. Let the ship be of limited combat capability, but stay afloat, part of the crew will survive, because the bulkheads will be intact. Of course, the military needs everything or nothing, but a damaged ship can be restored, which cannot be said about a sunken ship. The approach to armoring ships would be worth re-examining, using armouring practices in other areas. And then somehow it turns out not comme il faut.
    1. yehat
      yehat 7 December 2015 21: 01
      0
      at the expense of body rigidity, the issue is debatable - it depends on the success of the project
  43. Nross
    Nross 6 December 2015 08: 55
    0
    Something big doubts take me that 100 armor-piercing steel is enough to protect against modern anti-ship missiles.
    Given their declared performance characteristics, as BE 700-800 mm, a homogeneous multilayer ceramic was not needed. Or in general, as in tanks: active throughout the cover zone.
    As I understand it, he looked at the zamvolt and "figured out". But the Americans did not decide to install such armor on the anti-ship missile system, but rather from the terrorist saboteurs on boats.

    "Let's say that 100 mm is enough" ... oh, those engineers with modern USE education.
    1. yehat
      yehat 7 December 2015 00: 13
      +1
      in my opinion, the concept of a trimaran can seriously increase survivability. The efficiency of the hull contours will deteriorate, however, the engines are developing and the maximum speed is not always important, cruising is much more important.
      Even lightly armored side shells can be a serious problem for missiles.
      I would even suggest that constructive protection is enough. At the same time, the displacement will not increase too much. The same buildings will be able to fulfill the role of boules.
      1. yehat
        yehat 7 December 2015 21: 00
        0
        another advantage of the trimaran may be a decrease in the radius of circulation
        in other words, this is an assumption winked
  44. pooop
    pooop 7 December 2015 00: 47
    +1
    I read the comments, in principle I agree, I think that there is no point in this reservation, given the class of the ship.
    my opinion is that the best "booking" is such komlpes
    1. yehat
      yehat 7 December 2015 20: 58
      0
      with this approach, ships will become vulnerable to wooden stealth boats with Somali special forces laughing
  45. _KM_
    _KM_ 8 December 2015 01: 02
    0
    The topic of radar protection and antennae armor remained unsolved. wink
  46. shadow
    shadow 8 December 2015 17: 10
    0
    I will make a comparison. Previously, computers were large, and programs were small. What now? Here is the same thing.
  47. Glad
    Glad 17 December 2015 04: 13
    0
    Quote: BORMAN82
    In a 320mm high explosive projectile, up to 40kg., And 175kg is the weight of a powder charge.
    The weight of the explosives of the sea high-explosive shells did not exceed 110kg (the shell of the British gun 18 "/ 40Mark I), and the bulk had 20-90kg. The speed of the 14" -18 "caliber shells at distances of 20-30km was about 450-400m / s The speed of most anti-ship missiles subsonic and have warheads weighing in the range of 200-250kg (the weight of the warhead is not the weight of the explosives - for example, in the P-15M anti-ship missiles, the warhead weighs 513kg, and the weight of the explosives is 370kg.

    Absolutely right. The only addition to the above is that the TNT equivalent of explosives in the RCC warhead will be slightly larger than unity.
  48. Glad
    Glad 17 December 2015 04: 30
    0
    Strange ... Even shipbuilders do not take into account that even with the laying of any modern "battleship", the enemy will begin to modernize their anti-ship missiles. Take, for example, and at the expense of not too much reduction in other characteristics, add a precharge to the warhead, which will give a shock core at a speed of 2 - 3 km / s. Neither ordinary nor ceramic, nor any other armor of reasonable thickness will hold such a "goodie".
    I am already silent about the fact that even many old anti-ship missiles carried a high-explosive cumulative warhead.

    So, alas and ah ... The best armor of the ship is the SAM and ZRAK. The number is bigger and with the ammunition cellar deeper. Everything else is not in this life.