Military Review

Degradation of the modern fleet. Response article

196
Degradation of the modern fleet. Response article

Permanent participants in the dispute about the concept of the development of the modern Navy and the eternal confrontation between “shell and armor” are pleased to welcome a new participant, N. Dmitriev. Below is a brief review of the article “Armadillos in the XXI century. What is wrong with them? ”


The theme is deservedly popular, which means full speed ahead.

Less abstract reasoning, more facts!

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.




Amphibious assault ships of the “Bob Hope” type sea shipping command, length 290 meters, full displacement 62 thousand tons. In total, the “hot standby” of the MSC is 25-like leviathans.


Helicopter destroyers Hyuga and Izumo (Japan). The length of the Izumo is 248 meters, full in / and 27 thousand tons.

Now even beggars such as Egypt can afford to land the Mistral with a displacement of 20 thousand tons. However, to adopt a modern destroyer (some 8 ... 10 th. Tons) can only seven states of the world. Interestingly, dear N. Dmitriev knows the answer to this riddle?

(A clue: the destroyer is equipped with a zonal air defense system, which, together with detection means, SLA and ammunition, is twenty times more expensive than its hull. Therefore, you can build a second larger ship, having received Izumo and Mistral, but in terms of cost and labor intensity built such a giant does not even come close to the destroyer.)

Tons of displacement do not cost anything against the high-tech “stuffing” of the air defense ship. Differences in the cost of armored and unarmored destroyers are within the margin of error.


The diagram shows the cost structure for the construction of a Chinese frigate Type 054A with relatively primitive and cheap weapons (medium-range SAM systems, only 32 launch cells). As a result, the cost weapons and detection tools amounted to ~ 200 million (53%) versus 45 million from the case with its fittings and interior decoration (13%).

So, arguing that:

In the 21st century, the fleet is ruled by the effectiveness / cost ratio, and I will proceed from this.

Comrade Dmitriev, to put it mildly, is cunning. And simply, does not know what is at stake.

Due to the exceptional cost of high-precision weapons, size and displacement are not any significant parameters in assessing the cost of a warship. By the way, the landing "Bob Hope" cost five times cheaper than six times smaller in size "Arly Burke."

To add a displacement 4000 t, you will have to add another 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.


In the same article, a respected shipbuilder stated the exact opposite:

Zamvolt (15 thous. Tons) and Arly Burk (10 thous. Tons) have EI of the same capacity (100 thous. Tons) and approximately the same speed (the large Zamvolt is slower at the 1-1,5 node).


That is, the problem with the "extra" 4000 and even 5000 tons somewhere suddenly "evaporated."

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.


If N. Dmitriev had thought a little stronger, he would have noticed that the speed and the required power of the EI weakly correlate with the displacement. It is for this reason that the heavy cruisers of the war years, being twice the size of modern destroyers, were content with EE of similar power (the difference is in the range of 20%). Moreover, those heroes of the past were faster than any modern destroyer (33 + Uz.)

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.

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 can this be compensated? Throw out unnecessary equipment.


Why this set of reasoning, if it contradicts the obvious? Whatever modern shipbuilders are babbling now (and without giving any concrete calculations), the fact remains: в stories there were well-protected, well-armed and, at the same time, extremely high-speed ships! At the backward technological level 20's. last century. Who does not want, is looking for reasons, who wants is looking for opportunities No need to tell horror stories about stability and metacentre. If contemporaries do not have enough knowledge and even just the desire to assess the situation from a different angle, turn to the engineers of past eras.

Heavy cruiser “Myoko”, Japan, 1925 year.



Total displacement 15,5 thousand tons (almost like the destroyer “Zamvolt”). Power GEM - 130 thous. Hp Speed ​​(depending on mod.) - up to 35 nodes. Naturally, more than any modern ship.

What happens if you remove five towers of the main caliber from the “Miko”, 12 boilers “Kampon” and other rusty junk, while reducing the crew of the cruiser 6-8 times.

In return - a hundred compact units of UVP and radar AN / SPY-1, coupled with highly efficient gas turbines.

Probably, the ship will immediately overturn?

Of course not. Why should he overturn. The modernized “Myoko” has a free load of thousands of tons. And the mass of options, how to dispose of it (including spending on improving security).

Someone will say: impossible! In this case, we must admit that all the last 90 years, progress has moved in the opposite direction.

Isn't it funny?

“Myoko”, being an ugly and imperfect “Washingtonian”, anyway, already carried some reservation (mm belt 102, armor 35 mm). Weak? But we have in reserve - thousands of tons of reserve load! With the complete absence of international restrictions on w / and warships (that is, if necessary, you can easily bargain a couple more thousand tons).

All the power of modern technology is available.

Bainite perforated body armor and Krupp armored steel, differentiated in thickness, included in the hull's power pack (partially save on frames and cladding). 500 tons of internal anti-splinter bulkheads (up to a couple of inches thick + ceramics / kevlar). Cofferdams (narrow uninhabited corridors) filled with scraps of steel pipes.

Million all sorts of solutions!

“The rocket will make a slide and crash into the deck.” So what? Does anyone naively believe that the creators of the “armored approach” will not take into account in its design the most obvious threats of our time. Who ever said that his appearance and layout will resemble cruisers 90-year-old? And who decided that horizontal protection will be weaker than vertical?



Will the ship tip over? Problems with stability. Yes, hell with two!
The narrow, long and unstable “Myoko” dragged five towers of the main caliber 203 mm. This is even cooler than any armored decks. 1000 tons, but not on, and OVER the top deck!


“Superstructures will collapse,” “add-ons will not be booked.”

And who ever decided that a modern ship needed any massive superstructures?

Here is my question to my esteemed opponent: what equipment requires placement in the superstructure? Which of the systems there cannot be placed inside the case? The lack of volumes is solved by increasing the width of the body by a couple of meters.

The armor itself also costs big money. The price is usually negotiable and depends on the steel grade and the size of the sheets needed, but the price limits can be determined. One ton of armor plates costs approximately from 300000 rubles.


Pff ... 5 thousand dollars. On the background of the destroyer - 2 000 000 000.

An insignificant item of expenditure. The whole body with armor - 10% of the cost.

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 we will be able to somehow fight ...
... if they have no particular advantages, but they are more expensive?


“Ah, figs with him. Let it sink, ”said Herr Admiral and hung up.

And do not care that on board the damaged ship there are still 200 people (many of whom are highly qualified specialists). And unused ammunition worth half a billion dollars. + small things: turbine power plant, consoles and servers BIC, generators and electrical accessories, helicopter and many other useful and expensive property.

Let it sink - the radar was barely the first to shatter. And before that, even if it burned from the wreckage of a downed rocket (a curious incident with the frigate Entrym, 1983)

The absurdity of this approach is obvious and does not require additional clarification.

Finally, the ability to withstand one hit more than the enemy, and as a result, winning is priceless.
Author:
196 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alex_59
    Alex_59 8 December 2015 06: 53
    29
    Oleg, you are going in the right direction. The next step in reducing the silhouette of the ship is the removal of the hull under the water - and the ship of the XXI century is ready! The submarine is called. smile
    True, Sergey Georgievich has already passed this way, for which some later criticized him. So this is not your know-how.
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2015 06: 59
      +9
      Quote: Alex_59
      Oleg, you are going in the right direction. The next step in reducing the silhouette of the ship is removal of the case under water - and the ship of the XXI century is ready! The submarine is called.

      As soon as the boats learn to provide air defense squadrons and convoys
      as well as perform other, specific functions inherent only to surface ships
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 8 December 2015 07: 26
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As soon as the boats learn to provide air defense squadrons and convoys

        Aviation air defense tasks solve without problems and even better than ground-based means.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        as well as perform other, specific functions inherent only to surface ships
        What are these specific features?
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 8 December 2015 08: 58
          +3
          Quote: Alex_59
          Aviation air defense tasks solve without problems and even better than ground-based means.


          I wonder how aviation will protect the AUG from calibers, brahmos, etc.?
          1. THE_SEAL
            THE_SEAL 8 December 2015 14: 22
            +2
            Quote: Falcon
            Quote: Alex_59
            Aviation air defense tasks solve without problems and even better than ground-based means.


            I wonder how aviation will protect the AUG from calibers, brahmos, etc.?

            Early detection and destruction of funds that carry caliber, etc. even before they discover AUG. Something like this. But this is in theory. Practice shows the opposite.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 8 December 2015 15: 18
            0
            Quote: Falcon
            I wonder how aviation will protect the AUG from calibers, brahmos, etc.?

            Destruction of their carriers (the radius of AB projectiles - up to 600 miles) and an increase in the depth of air defense. Ideally, naval air defense systems should only deal with the shooting of what broke through the screen of fighter jets.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 8 December 2015 15: 29
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Destruction of their carriers (the radius of AB projectiles - up to 600 miles) and an increase in the depth of air defense. Ideally, naval air defense systems should only deal with the shooting of what broke through the screen of fighter jets.


              Quote: THE_SEAL
              Early detection and destruction of funds that carry caliber, etc. even before they discover AUG. Something like this. But this is in theory. Practice shows the opposite.


              I will answer right away.

              This butter is obtained. Who would deny that aviation should bring down carriers. But then Comrade said:

              Quote: Alex_59
              Aviation air defense tasks solve without problems and even better than ground-based means.


              Based on this, I wrote - that not everything can be decided by aviation. More precisely, this is only one way of protection. Otherwise, why do we need C-400. In general, it’s somehow strange to compare the effectiveness of air defense systems with aircraft winked

              Otherwise, you can get to this.

              Then aviation is not needed, not only SAM fellow
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 8 December 2015 17: 59
                0
                Quote: Falcon
                Based on this, I wrote - that not everything can be decided by aviation. More precisely, this is only one way of protection. Otherwise, why do we need C-400. In general, it’s somehow strange to compare the effectiveness of air defense systems with aircraft

                The comrade wrote this in relation to this particular naval theater. Because on it, aviation is more effective than naval air defense systems - at least in that it can work on targets beyond the visible horizon.
                And the air defense systems of the same Yankees are the last frontier of defense.
            2. Nishtiag
              Nishtiag 9 December 2015 01: 16
              0
              the range of the anti-ship version of the caliber is of the order of 300-400 km, similar to a tomahawk.
        2. Santa Fe
          8 December 2015 10: 58
          +4
          Quote: Alex_59
          Aviation air defense tasks solve without problems

          Aviation cannot help in any way from a flock of anti-ship missiles accidentally launched from a submarine
          Quote: Alex_59
          What are these specific features?

          ANTI-AIR DEFENSE

          the most important function of modern destroyer class ships

          the rest is secondary. but it also has a place to be:
          - shelling of ground targets.
          - radio interception and electronic warfare
          - demonstration of their presence

          So enough to be a fool, the submarine fleet will not replace the surface one for another hundred years, until the boats learn to detect fighters and flying anti-ship missiles from under the water column
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 8 December 2015 11: 52
            14
            for SWEET_SIXTEEN:

            "So stop being foolish, the submarine will not replace the surface fleet for another hundred years, until the boats learn to detect fighters and flying anti-ship missiles from under the water column" ///

            Why immediately "play the fool"?

            The submarine has TWO positions: underwater and surface.

            In the above-water position, submarines with rows of vertical missile launchers of all types of air defense and missile defense
            and with quadrocopters raised above it with radars and antennas (as the British intended to do in their project) will be able to replace destroyers such as Earley Burke.

            And in the underwater position - to avoid the enemy’s blow or imperceptibly get close to him.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 8 December 2015 13: 54
              +3
              Quote: voyaka uh
              In the above-water position, submarines with rows of vertical missile launchers of all types of air defense and missile defense
              and with quadrocopters raised above it with radars and antennas (as the British intended to do in their project) will be able to replace destroyers such as Earley Burke.


              I don’t understand why everyone was so attached to these air defense submarines.

              I think you forget why they need destroyers. To cover an aircraft carrier. And not yet submarine carrier why an underwater destroyer? Which will be three times more expensive?

              For everything else, there is already Virginia ...

              Quote: voyaka uh
              quadcopters raised above it with radars and antennas


              It is not so simple to provide continuous round-the-clock hanging of quadrocopters. Yes, and the higher they are, the easier it is to direct RCC. There must also be a compromise in the heights.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 8 December 2015 15: 14
                +3
                for Falcon:

                "It seems to me that you forget why they need destroyers. To cover the aircraft carrier" ////

                You're right. But this position is "for now". We are discussing an independent
                warship of the future. Cruiser near future, so to speak.
                And my assumption is that it will be like a large submarine
                "with increased combat capabilities on the surface."
                1. alex86
                  alex86 8 December 2015 19: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  as if a large submarine
                  "with increased combat capabilities on the surface."

                  The French some time ago considered the option of a semi-submersible ship, they even called it "Surkuf" (like a new generation), so far they refused, but the first swallow ...
                2. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 9 December 2015 23: 06
                  +2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  it will be like a large submarine
                  "with increased combat capabilities on the surface."
                  Alexey! such a "compromise" will lead to optimization of the case shape. Then, any damage to the durable hull will deprive such a submarine / NK of the ability to dive to the working depth. Well, then - aviation will complete the matter, as has happened more than once before.
            2. afdjhbn67
              afdjhbn67 8 December 2015 14: 54
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              And in the underwater position - to avoid the enemy’s blow or imperceptibly get close to him.

              And what about the acoustic signal? there will be such a roar there to get close ...
            3. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 9 December 2015 22: 55
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              The submarine has TWO positions: underwater and surface.

              It’s also positional ... But why don’t you like submariners so much if you are trying to deprive the main tactical advantage - stealth !?
              The times of M. Hajiyev with his artillery battles against the enemy’s NK have gone down in history. So is it worth repeating?
              In any case, the Submarine is therefore submarine because it is under water, and it enjoys it with great benefit for itself. yes
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 8 December 2015 15: 22
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Aviation cannot help in any way from a flock of anti-ship missiles accidentally launched from a submarine

            Aviation will help to detect this submarine at distant approaches and destroy it. smile

            For as soon as the suitable side places emphasis on the SSGNs as the main strike forces, the other side immediately begins to invent all kinds of anti-submarine and anti-submarine-wing aircraft wings AB.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 8 December 2015 15: 38
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Aviation will help to detect this submarine at distant approaches and destroy it.

              For as soon as the suitable side places emphasis on the SSGNs as the main strike forces, the other side immediately begins to invent all kinds of anti-submarine and anti-submarine-wing aircraft wings AB.


              It is not so simple. Even taking into account the RCC range in 300 km, it takes a very long time to search for submarines in such an area. Sometimes a submarine is detected only after the launch of anti-ship missiles

              Remember the incident - when our DPL in tight came to the AUG? Something aviation did not help them.

              Do not forget that the attacking air group is not so easy to detect in advance. And preparation of an aircraft for departure takes a lot of time, it depends on the degree of readiness, maybe more than an hour, and you won’t get a lot of them at once.

              On an aircraft carrier - a very limited number of launch positions and communications for pre-flight

              And the air defense system is ready for launch in a couple of minutes
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 8 December 2015 18: 13
                +1
                Quote: Falcon
                It is not so simple. Even taking into account the RCC range in 300 km, it takes a very long time to search for submarines in such an area. Sometimes a submarine is detected only after the launch of anti-ship missiles

                There is only one way out - stationary borders, base PLO aviation, escort of SSBNs of the enemy ICAPL (which is more banal) ... in short - hello, Cold War.
                Quote: Falcon
                On an aircraft carrier - a very limited number of launch positions and communications for pre-flight

                And the air defense system is ready for launch in a couple of minutes

                EMNIP, "Nimitz" raises aircraft at a rate of 1 aircraft in 2 minutes from 1 catapult. And he has 4 catapults.
                In addition, the IA works on those goals that the air defense system does not see or does not reach at all. What is the use of having a heavy missile on an S-400 ship if its radar sees targets on PMV only 15-20 miles from the ship?
                1. Santa Fe
                  8 December 2015 22: 37
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  What is the use of having a heavy missile on a C-400 ship if its radar sees targets on the PMV only miles in 15-20 from the ship?

                  Better to have

                  flying time of anti-ship missiles issued from a submarine (20 miles) - 120 seconds. aviation will not even have time to react, all hope for air defense / missile escort destroyers
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 9 December 2015 23: 21
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    the flying time of anti-ship missiles issued from a submarine (20 miles) is 120 seconds. aviation will not even have time to react,
                    Oleg, and AWACS? And air patrols (at least a couple) equipped with air defense versions ... And how will the airplanes pass Virginia and KPUG (4 frigates of anti-aircraft defense with BPGAS). In any case, the boat will dodge to get out of the search bar. And there the cutoff barriers of the RSLA ... In short, it will not be easy.
                    Well, and after the first anti-ship missiles, Asroki or similar things will fly ...
                    In a word: a war of minds, nerves and characters, the capabilities of technology.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      10 December 2015 05: 39
                      -1
                      120 seconds, and in the case of the caliber - even less. do not have time to write
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      Oleg, and AWACS?

                      constantly in the air a maximum of one
                      what is the chance that it will be located in the launch area, and not 200 miles south

                      RCC can be seen and taken for escort against the background of water only from minimum distance (20-30 miles)
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      And air patrols (at least a couple) equipped with air defense ...

                      what is the chance that they will be nearby.
                      and they will have time to react - turn around to the desired course, take the target for tracking, point and release raets
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      In any case, the boat will dodge to get out of the search strip. Fly Asroki or similar gizmos

                      What does it matter when RCCs are already flying to the target
                2. Falcon
                  Falcon 9 December 2015 20: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  EMNIP, "Nimitz" raises aircraft at a rate of 1 aircraft in 2 minutes from 1 catapult. And he has 4 catapults.


                  This has nothing to do with preflight preparation.
                  Catapults launch already prepared aircraft. Their goal is to raise a quickly prepared link.

                  For preflight preparation, several man / hours are required, a supply of fuel, current, air, other filling gases and hydraulic fluids, etc. is needed.



                  For every hour of flight - there are several hours of work on the ground
                  Checked wink
          3. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 9 December 2015 22: 27
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Aviation cannot help in any way from a flock of anti-ship missiles accidentally launched from a submarine
            "Accidentally" can launch 1-2 missiles, and when it comes to "flock" - there is a planned missile strike.
            Again controversial is the statement:
            And who ever decided that a modern ship needed any massive superstructures?
            ... what equipment needs to be placed in the add-in? Which of the systems located there cannot be placed inside the enclosure?

            Dragon (type 45) is recognized as the best EM defense of Britain and NATO. Look at his tower! Egyptian pyramid however!
            And how do you, Oleg, think: what did the British place there?
            1. Santa Fe
              9 December 2015 22: 59
              -3
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Look at his tower! Egyptian pyramid however!
              And how do you, Oleg, think: what did the British place there?

              How are the Tower and Superstructure related?

              they exist separately from each other
            2. Susul
              Susul 10 December 2015 00: 04
              0
              This is a no brainer!
              the higher the radar above sea level, the farther it will find a low-flying target.
              are some really dumber than hedgehogs
              1. Santa Fe
                10 December 2015 05: 42
                0
                Quote: SUSUL
                eat higher radar above sea level,

                and where does the add-on?

                the antenna can be placed on a truss mast 20 meters high
      2. Alex_Sis
        Alex_Sis 8 December 2015 09: 27
        +1
        Actually SSBN in which launchers of ICBMs are replaced by launchers. Target designation via UAV / airship. You can also book a case for anti-torpedo protection.
        1. Lapkonium
          Lapkonium 8 December 2015 10: 07
          0
          pah, ahead of me.
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 9 December 2015 23: 40
          +1
          Quote: Alex_Sis
          You can also book a case for anti-torpedo protection.

          Can you even imagine what modern torpedoes are?
          In the photo, the Mk-48 torpedo explosion (warhead = 500 kg of explosives) under the keel of the frigate Torrens. Effect: small ships break in half, and larger ships are 100% likely to be damaged or flooded. The height of the water column from the explosion reaches 150 meters. Well, what kind of armor can stand this?
          1. Kars
            Kars 10 December 2015 00: 12
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            water from the explosion reaches 150 meters. Well, what kind of armor can stand this?

            But it doesn’t hurt, with close explosions of the torpedo by means of anti-torpedo defense of the ship.
      3. Lapkonium
        Lapkonium 8 December 2015 10: 05
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As soon as the boats learn to provide air defense squadrons and convoys

        And how do you like this turn: Tandem Premier League Airship! The armament on the submarine is all armament, the airship is tied to it with a cable and soars to itself 100 meters above sea level, carrying radars of different ranges inside the radio-transparent shell. And you don’t need any huge add-ons, but all the weapons are inside the submarine!

        The only doubts: how to avoid meeting the airship with a take-off rocket, and what will happen to this airship on a leash in a fierce storm. The rest is a golden idea, yes !?

        Remember me, when you will receive the hero of Russia for your contribution to the development of the fleet. wink
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 8 December 2015 10: 28
          +3
          Quote: Lapkonium
          Tandem Premier League Airship!


          An airship is, alas, a flying target, and if in this case it is shot down, then everything will go completely blind; moreover, a hypothetical airship will have to constantly circumnavigate the area in which the submarine is located, automatically giving its position to the enemy. So it’s better to have a duet - a nuclear submarine - an UAV launching from it - a submarine pops up - an UAV takes off from it, sends information about the enemy to it, a nuclear submarine fires a volley, an UAV lands, an nuclear submarine dives. True rockets in this case will have to adjust the satellite os. In principle, with a certain level of progress, it is possible to abandon UAV airships - and to receive all data from a satellite constellation.
          But you must admit - these are just dreams so far ...
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 8 December 2015 14: 53
            +1
            Already passed. In the USSR, the first submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic (for example pr.651, 956) did just that. Surfaced, received external target designation or put forward their own radar guidance missiles, fired, plunged and left. It doesn’t roll; on the surface the boat is unmasked and too vulnerable. After that we switched to underwater launch.
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 8 December 2015 13: 43
          +2
          Quote: Lapkonium
          And how do you like this turn: The tandem of the Premier League-Airship! The armament on the submarine is all armament, the airship is tied to it with a cable and soars to itself at 100 meters above sea level, carrying radars of different ranges inside the radio-transparent shell.


          A radiolucent sheath is not needed - if a radar hangs on it. She will shine like a headlamp at night.

          Do not forget that it’s much easier to direct RCC into the zone with the airship hanging on the 100
        3. the most important
          the most important 8 December 2015 17: 09
          0
          Quote: Lapkonium
          Remember me, when you will receive the hero of Russia for your contribution to the development of the fleet.

          There is already a five-row line ... but there is no modern fleet ... request
      4. max702
        max702 8 December 2015 17: 15
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As soon as the boats learn to provide air defense squadrons and convoys

        All this is provided by the FLAG of the ship! And not guns, radars and missiles .. Let's say some Bosnia or Nigeria has a couple of super ships, and what? the same for the United States, it somehow hinders, if necessary, to drown them and all the transport that they accompany, or for some other task that runs counter to the goals of the United States? Of course not! The United States will see if these countries can then give an answer to the United States, which will be unacceptable. If they cannot, then it does not matter how high the combat effectiveness of these ships will go to the bottom! But if the state may be offended and can cause unacceptable damage to the United States, then they will think whether it is worth attacking the ship, and it does not matter if it is a civilian dry cargo ship or a super missile armored cruiser .. Before talking about the effectiveness of the fleet, you need to think about his tasks. The task of the bourgeoisie is to carry "democracy", ours is to fight off the first strike and inflict unacceptable damage on those in return .. EVERYTHING! There are no other tasks for smaller fleets on the planet earth .. All the rest are either for the first (the majority) or are trying to solve a problem similar to ours and there is one country that is trying to combine these tasks, this country is called China ..
      5. yehat
        yehat 8 December 2015 21: 05
        0
        boats ALREADY learned to provide air defense for a long time, another question - what is the price?
        and now it is much inferior to surface ships.
      6. Sirgrey
        Sirgrey 8 December 2015 22: 45
        -1
        Insanity grew stronger)
        That is, let's lighten the ships with armor? And for what? What will she protect from?
        Or are we again going to ship ships in artduel?
      7. Nishtiag
        Nishtiag 9 December 2015 01: 15
        0
        Reasoning similarly to you and a certain Dmitriev:

        throw her strategic missiles from a strategic boat, it’s thousands of tons (and 2000 or 5000, what difference does it make? count? no, I don’t think), an example is, by the way, Ohio. 154 tomahawk instead of 24 brpl.

        Sim-salabim, let there be not 154, but 94 tomahawk, 60 cells for air defense / pro missiles. Yes, the add-on will also have to work hard, and it will be necessary to solve radars. The idea of ​​placing the radar on a large-sized quadrocopter will come to the rescue. You can see everyone straight from the abyss of the sea / okeyana.

        So wunder the waffle. I came up with 5 minutes. What are the shipbuilders doing there in St. Petersburg and Tan? Why eat their bread?

        I may not be a shipbuilder, but I am an engineer. And, as an engineer, I can guarantee that the real difficulties arise when you try to "shove in the unpushable" - to unite many different things inside one whole.

        PS: 5000 $ is enough to buy a ton of armor, but how much will it take to weld thick sheets of strong steel? It is necessary to provide a weld to the entire thickness! And do not say that since they could 100 years ago, they can now. They can. How much is it? The welding operation of armor steel became 1000 times rarer than in the 1940 year. When tens of thousands of tanks were built per year and hundreds of heavy ships. And it’s time to fall off steel already. There are new, modern, expensive materials that will be 10 times easier and smarter and dinner will be cooked, only 100 times more expensive.

        PPS: one more remark. About Mioki. Why on earth did you think that modern SU equipment will be lighter than the old? It is more perfect, but I do not see any evidence that it will be easier.

        And even this is not the main problem! No one knows (of those present, and if he knows, he won’t say) what kind of armor should be so that this or that RCC does not penetrate it!

        But the main thing is to get an order from the military. And the military does not always like something new. Especially when it comes to a ship that you once built, and then for 50 years you will sail the seas on it. And it is possible that some admiral received proposals to design at least ROC for an armored frigate or EM (from a harpoon, for example). But "since everyone in the world builds non-armored ships, then there is nothing to twitch, do not invent it, Vaska!"
    2. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 8 December 2015 07: 19
      +8
      Quote: Alex_59
      Oleg, you are going in the right direction.

      Trees die standing ......
    3. Ruslan
      Ruslan 8 December 2015 07: 39
      11
      he knew that there would be an answer article when the author did not check in that topic. but here I am sure that there is no reservation, since no one is seriously going to fight, and single cases are not a reason for booking. nobody will bother with this. I think that the concept of shipbuilding has changed, it is necessary that two of their fleets have to fight in the vast oceans. Well, for example, China versus Japan. then they’ll start thinking about new approaches. in the meantime, they’ll go on a rolled track.
    4. Mera joota
      Mera joota 8 December 2015 08: 40
      +4
      Quote: Alex_59
      The next step in reducing the silhouette of the ship is the removal of the hull under the water - and the ship of the XXI century is ready! The submarine is called.

      Not really. Semi-submersible vessels are called, the rather discussed crown was in the mid-80s, was considered a promising structure. But somehow it didn’t ...
      1. Lapkonium
        Lapkonium 8 December 2015 09: 46
        +3
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Semi-submerged ships are called,

        Very interesting! Although, indeed, if all weapons are hidden under water, in universal shafts, and above the water, only radars should be left on a floating platform ... There are blows to ground / surface targets. Air defense / missile defense - is. PLO - is. What else can you need from a ship?

        Of the problems, only the stabilization of high radars on compact platforms ... And if this is also the drone drone - uhhh.
    5. PAM
      PAM 8 December 2015 09: 54
      +4
      as soon as I see an article devoted to the fleet (with the name bearing the meaning that modern ships are developing in the wrong direction or in the controversial), you can guess the author 90%.
    6. the most important
      the most important 8 December 2015 11: 11
      +4
      Quote: Alex_59
      Oleg, you are going in the right direction. The next step in reducing the silhouette of the ship is the removal of the hull under the water - and the ship of the XXI century is ready! The submarine is called.

      Why not? Why some part of the ships of the future will not be able to go under water ??? Do not forget that everything develops in a spiral, but with each new turn at a higher level. The fleet of the near future, the next hundred years, is a completely different configuration of the components. And the future destroyer may well look like a submarine or destroyer submarine, operating depending on the situation underwater or on the surface. And target designation occurs from reconnaissance satellites. No one in the world 100 years ago could have imagined the modern level of weapons and it is difficult for us to guess what will happen in a hundred years. I fully admit that battleships will also be accepted into service considering how much of the world's population lives in the coastal zone and the fact that a shot from a cannon is hundreds (thousands !!!) times cheaper than a rocket. The war in Syria shows that dispersed groups of Barmaley cannot be destroyed with missiles alone, that the "old" FABs are quite appropriate. Accordingly, why is there no future for a floating artillery battery in its modern guise? Why not have a battleship with missile-cannon armament (conditionally howitzers + Tornado) capable of hitting many scattered targets at 300-400 km and acting as part of a group? And this is not tens, but several thousand shots. Who said that submarines do not have a highly protected hull? They are clearly closer to battleships than to modern Western tin cans. In a dispute, truth is born. And the future fleet is a fleet born in heated debates on the basis of new technologies and, perhaps, completely different from the modern one.
    7. goose
      goose 8 December 2015 13: 00
      +4
      No, I already liked this article, it is more reasoned. I can add from myself that for a cruiser from 10 thousand tons, after 30 knots, for every 2 knots of speed it was required to double the power of the power plant. Roughly speaking, I thought that Mioko could manage 50-60 thousand horses to develop a speed of about 30 knots with a displacement of about 13,5 thousand tons.
      But there is a big BUT here. For constructive booking to work, the ship must be wide. To create an effective battleship, it is most likely necessary to lower the rate of full speed by another 3-5 knots and make the ship wider and shorter. Only then will a compact power plant be obtained, really working spaced armor protection with bevels and a horizontal armor deck, and there will be a place for the cellar behind this protection. If you make a narrow protected ship with a speed of 30 knots, then at least 20 kilotons will be there with all the problems of docking, mooring, etc. A thicker one with the same protection and armament composition, but also slower, with a speed of 25-27 knots, like that of the Perry frigates, will keep within 15 kilotons, and will have protection even more serious than the heavy cruisers of the 30s. In addition, on a wide ship it will be possible to talk about anti-torpedo protection, if it is relevant.
    8. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 8 December 2015 14: 23
      0
      ..... The next step in reducing the silhouette of the ship is to remove the hull under water - and the ship of the XXI century is ready! ....

      .... It already happened .... In the war between the North and the South .... The ship was called "Monitor" ..... Somehow it did not take root - "Monitor" with a little excitement turned into a submarine .... wassat
      1. kashtak
        kashtak 8 December 2015 16: 27
        +1
        look at the root. I just ask you to take into account that the "Monitor" was not adapted to transmit a wave above itself. was not sealed from above. on which he drowned.
    9. papas-57
      papas-57 8 December 2015 21: 21
      0
      `` Who in general decided that a modern ship needs any massive superstructures? '' And hide the radar under the water, so as not to be damaged. Since the superstructure will be low, the radar will see for a dozen or two kilometers, i.e. see nothing. The detection of an approaching missile at this distance means “late” and direct contact of the missile with the ship with all the ensuing consequences. Therefore, out of harm's way the radar under water. Will sink undamaged along with the wrecked ship.
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 8 December 2015 06: 59
    10
    Kaptsov !!! Have you ever read your nonsense ??? Already how many articles have been written - and the style is the same: pulling out the facts, blindly worshiping American equipment, nostalgia for WWII cruisers and lacing them to and from place.
    KINDERGARTEN! laughing At least Dmitriev's logic was observed, but then she was a solid childhood - they offended, underestimated, we must answer. And the answer is nothing good, again transfusion from empty to empty ... request
    Minus, with a bunch of minuses !!! And if you, comrade Kaptsov, who drew attention to many comments on their latest articles, they would have seen most of the remarks about how this nonsense and distortions were already taken out, and not the interest in the subject ...
    I repeat, you have adequate articles that are interesting to read, but in this thread you yourself cross out your personality delirium! My personal opinion, nothing personal hi
    PS If you studied psychology even a little, you would understand my criticism, because it does not sound for a thoughtful "analyst", but for a boy wounded by selfishness who has not been appreciated (from his point of view). And further. By the way, there is a good expression: disagree - object, object - offer, suggest - do. I mean that all your talent can be realized in the shipbuilding design bureau, I suggest you get a job there. There you will prove that you are right, and everyone else is not. Yes, and you can minus with pleasure, my self-esteem will not suffer;)
    1. Kars
      Kars 8 December 2015 08: 31
      12
      Everything is completely logical. And the epilogue fully characterizes the opponents of the armor.
      “Ah, figs with him. Let it sink, ”said Herr Admiral and hung up.

      And do not care that there are still 200 people left on board the damaged ship (many of which are highly qualified specialists). As well as unexpended ammunition worth half a billion dollars + for little things: power turbines, consoles and servers of the Information Center, generators and electrical fittings, a helicopter and many other useful and expensive property.

      Let it sink - the radar was barely the first to shatter. And before that, even if it burned from the wreckage of a downed rocket (a curious incident with the frigate Entrym, 1983)

      Reread and see yourself))
    2. sniper
      sniper 8 December 2015 18: 24
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Kaptsov !!! Have you ever read your nonsense ???

      What for??? Since Oleg was recognized as a "Military Expert", the tone of his publications has become even more unacceptable ...
      Comrade Dmitriev, to put it mildly, is cunning. And simply, does not know what is at stake.
      One Mr. Kaptsov knows ...
      If N. Dmitriev thought a little harder

      Etc. Oleg, you have a star fever, with very mediocre knowledge ... Pichalka ... hi
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 8 December 2015 18: 31
        +2
        Quote: sniper
        Pichalka ...

        Yes, it's sad... request After all, I read somewhere on another site that Oleg Kaptsov is already a recognized military expert! winked And comrade Dmitriev works at the wrong shipbuilding plant - after all, they didn’t hear the arguments of the Kaptsov military expert, and therefore they build the wrong ships ... And Dmitriev cannot be right, because Oleg Kaptsov is always right - he is smarter and more well-read than anyone, and he has evidence always bigger, and all today's shipbuilders, admirals and strategists are suckers ... And so that the crown does not sleep, it is on an elastic band under the chin lol
        Self-esteem is always preferable to common sense ... Really sad ... wink hi
  3. shurup
    shurup 8 December 2015 07: 23
    +5
    Some monitors are looming low-sided under a solid armor shell.
    (And if high-breasted, why, indeed, add-ons?) On the armored deck, only covers for launchers are visible. Does this remind me of something? AND! It remains to add ballast tanks and completely sink! But under water, what’s on top, what’s on the bottom - Kruppov’s plates are useless.
    And in general, why are types of surface ships needed, stuffed mostly with expensive air defense for self-defense.
    1. goose
      goose 8 December 2015 15: 11
      0
      Quote: shurup
      (And if high-breasted, then why, really, add-ons?) On the armored deck only covers for launchers are visible. Does this remind me of something?

      Reminiscent of the "Turtle" of the Southerners
    2. kashtak
      kashtak 8 December 2015 16: 52
      0
      Alas, if you dive completely, you won't be able to use artillery and air defense systems. MLRS is also not a trifle. Air defense is absolutely necessary to cover not only the ship but also the convoy / base. I agree with the author, but there are questions. for example, what many thousands of tons does he say? 203mm tower weighed well if 250 tons. 5 to 250 equals only 1250 tons. all the artillery of the "Washingtonian" hardly exceeded 1500-1800 tons, it does not look like many thousands. second, "high efficiency gas turbines", gas turbines are not efficient, too uneconomical and have a large hot exhaust. now this problem has been solved by combining gas and steam turbines. and in general the article seems to be incomplete. I look forward to continuing.
  4. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 8 December 2015 07: 25
    +9
    The ship needs armor. Open the next bottle of beer, take the next portion of chips .. We look forward to continuing ..)
  5. Good cat
    Good cat 8 December 2015 07: 26
    +2
    Somehow straight Oleg Kaptsova was completely upset!
  6. Avenich
    Avenich 8 December 2015 07: 41
    12
    "Kaptsov and battleships." Revival of Santa Barbara on the pages of the Military Review.
    1. Nexus 6
      Nexus 6 8 December 2015 09: 05
      +4
      Don Quixote and the windmills ...
  7. Wedmak
    Wedmak 8 December 2015 08: 00
    14
    Oleg, but have you forgotten about the radars of detection, guidance and tracking? The higher it is above water, the greater its radius of action. Even one or two extra kilometers will give the chance of air defense of the ship to react to the threat. Further, surface surveillance tools also need add-ons and these are not only radars, they are optoelectronic components - the same, the higher the better. How to protect them?
    What is shown in the title picture resembles the design of an arsenal ship, with hundreds of missiles. But who will aim these missiles at the target? Something is not noticeable there. A built-in like Aegis work well only through the air, because located not high. There was somewhere an analysis of the same Aegis radars, there is the problem of determining a low-flying target. Cosmos sees perfectly, RCC on 5-10 meters with difficulty.
    They are telling you for the umpteenth time, think, is it better to place the heels of quick-fire air defense / anti-aircraft missile systems instead of the armored belt in 1000 tons? This will be more effective than passive armor, which sooner or later will be broken anyway, but there will be no way to replace it. Replace in the sense of modernization: after all, air defense systems are relatively easy to replace with more modern ones, but it is impossible to upgrade the armor tightly built into the hull. Need to build a new ship.
    1. Nexus 6
      Nexus 6 8 December 2015 09: 54
      +3
      Dreadnought 2050. The highlight of this arsenal is the “tethered” quadrocopter, which not only allows you to expand the view of the surrounding space and aim your weapon at long-range targets, but also is a carrier of laser weapons designed to destroy enemy attacking missiles. A cable made of carbon nanotubes provides power to the quadcopter for sensors and a laser. In the stowed position, the device is mounted on a low mast crowning the superstructure.
      http://topwar.ru/86523-metamorfozy-neustrashimogo.html

      By the way, in the concept of this ship, about armor, not a word!
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 8 December 2015 10: 40
        +3
        Well, it’s still fantastic - a cable made of carbon nanotubes, it’s about the same as force fields instead of armored steel meters. Apparently these fields are used there, so not a word about the reservation.
        1. Nexus 6
          Nexus 6 8 December 2015 12: 13
          +1
          Cable prototypes, according to this article, are already there.
          http://www.dailytechinfo.org/nanotech/2824-elektricheskie-kabelya-na-osnove-ugle
          rodnyh-nanotrubok-s-dvoynymi-stenami-perspektivnaya-zamena.html
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 8 December 2015 15: 26
      +1
      Guidance missiles of the arsenal ship was planned from external sources. In a pair, the shooter had to walk EM type Burke.
    3. goose
      goose 8 December 2015 15: 31
      +1
      On ships with the SPY-1 complex, there are usually 4 more special radars for detecting low-flying objects, because target detection at an altitude of less than 30 m for universal HEADLIGHTS on ships of the "Arleigh Burke" type is difficult to implement, and tracking is impossible.
      Our ships have the same story, despite the fact that Frigate is a little better with this, the characteristics of modern anti-ship missiles still do not leave a chance, and you have to put special horizontal radars to detect and aim at low-altitude objects with a flight height of less than 10 m and in another wave range up to suboptical.
  8. sergo1914
    sergo1914 8 December 2015 08: 33
    +2
    Cases need to be made ALL-METAL !!! Nothing will break through them. Why, besides me, no one guessed ???
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 8 December 2015 10: 49
      +2
      ALL-METAL

      Tell me the technology?
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 8 December 2015 12: 13
        +4
        Sand casting.
        1. goose
          goose 8 December 2015 15: 33
          +2
          Quote: sergo1914
          Sand casting

          Is it like cast parts from the T-34? And then all kinds of Germans will write that the barbaric ship of the Russians was made too rude to be good.
          1. sergo1914
            sergo1914 10 December 2015 08: 49
            0
            No. Files, boots and GOI paste will finalize the task list. The case will sparkle like ... in general, sparkle.
  9. Engineer
    Engineer 8 December 2015 08: 53
    +5
    On one well-known site, such articles are placed in the "alternative history" section and are not taken seriously.
  10. Mera joota
    Mera joota 8 December 2015 08: 54
    10
    Why so much skepticism? The concept that Oleg defends is quite true, but not for everyone. The same US NAVY is not particularly relevant because they rely on the number of ships and the quality of air defense systems. For us, with meager shipbuilding capacities, we don’t even have to stutter at quantitative parity with US NAVY, so the availability of a reservation will allow domestic ships to reduce possible losses. For US NAVY, the loss of five URO destroyers is certainly painful, but only psychologically, for us, such losses are actually the death of the fleet (SF or Pacific Fleet of course)
    1. mvg
      mvg 9 December 2015 00: 02
      0
      For US NAVY, the loss of five URO destroyers is certainly painful, but only psychologically, for us, such losses are actually the death of the fleet (SF or Pacific Fleet of course)

      Something tells me that if there is such a booze as the death of 5 USA destroyers, then there will be no need to worry about "similar" losses of our fleet ..
      And our damaged ships (but not sunk) will not get up for repairs.
  11. alexej123
    alexej123 8 December 2015 08: 56
    +4
    I'm certainly not an expert in shipbuilding and the fleet in general. Just a question - if everything is so "fine" with the booking of modern ships, why not a single country of the "shipbuilders", not a single company build such ships? That is, they do not understand something, but the author of the article has learned the truth?
    1. saruman
      saruman 8 December 2015 13: 59
      +4
      Quote: alexej123
      Did the author of the article know the truth?


      Most likely, it seems illogical to Kaptsov to develop a fleet of surface ships from the time of their artillery ancestors.
      During WWII, aviation and submarines questioned the combat stability of surface ships. But! The advent of missiles and the development of radar and electronics, gave surface ships unique opportunities. This is what determines the appearance of modern surface (and not only) ships. The reservation of the ships ceased to bother.
      Whether this concept is correct or not, it is very difficult to determine without large-scale naval battles.
  12. surrozh
    surrozh 8 December 2015 08: 57
    +2
    Targeting from space plus surface (underwater) carriers of a large number of hypersonic missiles will kill large armored (unarmored) ships / vessels / convoys. We can’t wait for the domestic aircraft carrier, it’s more likely to be airborne with drones.
    1. Ruslan
      Ruslan 8 December 2015 12: 53
      +2
      But how long will the satellites last? Americans are already honing the fleet to shoot them down. missile problem, she still needs to get there. and with modern systems of reb, it is not known what overspending will be, how many of them will reach the target. I stumbled upon an article, there was an interesting moment, during the exercises in the USSR, the reb forces were forbidden to work at full power, because the rest of the troops in general! nothing worked (neither communication, nor navigation, nor location). Since then, the question has been hovering in my head: how effective are all these stray devices (satellites, missiles), what are ours, what are American?
  13. ABVGDEZH
    ABVGDEZH 8 December 2015 09: 08
    +8
    The article is based on some attacks. I would like a more balanced discussion. the opponent’s article was more informative and balanced.
  14. adept666
    adept666 8 December 2015 09: 09
    +6
    Kaptsov strikes back! laughing good
  15. Operator
    Operator 8 December 2015 09: 18
    +5
    At what distance will the armored monitor, shown in the figure in the article, detect low-flying supersonic cruise missiles and, accordingly, what is the reaction time of the missile defense system of the monitor?

    Or will all missile strikes be in the monitor case - such as, figs with her, the combat mission (guarding the convoy, covering the AUG), is it important to return to the base for repair?

    Well then, the monitor will each time have the same route: going to sea - rocket strikes - returning to base - repair - going to sea, etc. And who will fight?
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 8 December 2015 09: 26
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      At what distance will the armored monitor, shown in the figure in the article, detect low-flying supersonic cruise missiles and, accordingly, what is the reaction time of the missile defense system of the monitor?


      How will its detection system differ from an unarmored ship? And the reaction time also does not change. Only the housing changes.

      Another thing is that the EPR will grow. Detecting will be easier and faster.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 8 December 2015 10: 42
        0
        Quote: Falcon
        Will his detection system be different from an unarmored ship?

        It is banal with the height of the radar))))) The fact that the figure can only look "into space", and the fact that it flies at a height of 10-20 meters above the water will be found only at the very approach, and this will reduce the probability of interception by orders of magnitude ...
        Do you think it was in vain that the British installed the latest SAMPSOM radar on such a tall mast on their destroyer of the 45 project?
        1. Santa Fe
          8 December 2015 11: 05
          0
          Quote: Albert1988
          Do you think it was in vain that the British installed the latest SAMPSOM radar on such a tall mast on their destroyer of the 45 project?

          Not a radar installed, but its antenna device

          place all posts and computing equipment in the citadel

          what prevents installing on the deck of the armored vehicle - truss with HEADLIGHT, similar to that in the illustration:

          Testing radar AN / SPY-3 on the destroyer "Foster" (2006)
          SPY-3 - Multifunctional Radar for Zamwalt
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 8 December 2015 17: 20
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            what prevents installing on the deck of the armored vehicle - truss with HEADLIGHT, similar to that in the illustration:

            This can be done, but if a CD arrives at this very "truss structure", it is guided corny by the radiation of the radar, and that's it, the ship is completely blind. Of course, we can say that anyone can be blinded this way, but it is possible that it will be so, and in this case, it is not necessary even to sink ships.
            As for another quite possible serious drawback of this "monitor" from the picture - you still need to take into account what seaworthiness it will have! I remember somehow monitors did not suffer from seaworthiness.

            So it's best to find out first. what do professional shipbuilding engineers think about this, and not amateurs, otherwise it’s funny how to me (genetics by education) one comrade on the forum, who had read Mr. Klimov’s pseudoscientific heap, rubbed in about the fact that scientists of genetics do not know anything about " real "mechanisms of heredity)))))
            1. Santa Fe
              8 December 2015 22: 52
              +2
              Quote: Albert1988
              As for another quite possible serious drawback of this "monitor" from the picture - you still need to take into account what seaworthiness it will have! I remember somehow monitors did not suffer from seaworthiness.

              How did you determine that this is a monitor
              Quote: Albert1988
              This can be done, but if a CD arrives at this very "truss structure", it is guided corny by the radiation of the radar, and that's it, the ship is completely blind

              horizon tracking radar will suffer.

              Surveillance radar - just do not destroy
              even with the loss of all means of radar, he can shoot missiles from the ARGS according to external target designation - other KUG ships, a multi-purpose helicopter similar to the MH-60R, F-35 fighters (this function is built into them specially) or AWACS aircraft

              shock potential - saved in full (Caliber and guns do not need radars)
              anti-submarine defense - fully preserved
              running and power not affected

              the ship continues to exist as a combat unit.
              unlike Burke, the total loss of 2 billion destroyer and 200-300 people. crew
              1. Albert1988
                Albert1988 9 December 2015 11: 15
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                How did you determine that this is a monitor

                I do not want to find fault, but according to the rules of good manners, a stranger should say "you", which is what I urge you to do. And about "monitor" - the word is in quotation marks, and although, the stump is clear, this is not a monitor in the classic form, but the shortcomings of such a ship will be very possibly purely "monitor".
                As for armor in general. You see, as soon as the armor appears on the ships, the anti-ship missiles will immediately take a step forward and acquire armor-piercing heads that pierce a couple of meters of homogeneous steel armor. In modern conditions, this is not difficult to do. For example, the anti-ship missile "granite" - weighs 9 tons (sometimes it is true that 7 tons are mentioned), the nose cone is able to withstand a burst of 20 mm shells, the speed is 2500 km / h, the warhead mass is 800 kg, when it hits a ship like a modern destroyer it can literally split it is halved only due to kinetic energy! And you think that armor, say, Yamato will withstand such a thing? I'm honestly not very sure. And to hang a powerful armor belt and an armored deck made of some kind of composites - so the cost will be simply exorbitant, given that the ship is a small piece. True, the range of "granite" by modern standards is not very - "only" 400 km.
                If such a thing was done long ago, then modern technologies will make it possible to do something more terrifying and with a range of several thousand km. Then - hypersonic missiles are on the way, "railguns" are on the way, and their armor will be on the side. In any case, we can state the fact - passive armor loses to the projectile and loses thoroughly. That is, armor in its modern form can only withstand modern missiles, it cannot even withstand their "simple" improvement. And an armored ship will have an advantage only if we take it at one moment, now we create it out of thin air, then yes, the enemy will need time to develop the appropriate weapon, otherwise, by the time of launching, everyone will already have armor-piercing anti-ship missiles.
                This means that the future lies with active protection and constructive protection (so as not to be torn apart from one hit), and, of course, it is necessary to develop measures to radically increase the survival of the crew and the survivability of the ship itself.
                And the armor of warships, as we presently present it, with a high probability is a thing of the past, and will be reborn only if a real revolution in materials science occurs and extremely strong, light, and most importantly cheap materials appear, so that they do not have a conventional shell like stitching paper hi
                1. Santa Fe
                  9 December 2015 13: 08
                  0
                  Quote: Albert1988
                  but the shortcomings of such a ship will be very possibly purely "monitor".

                  where does the monitor?
                  where does this analogy come from?

                  what are the "monitor" disadvantages?
                  Quote: Albert1988
                  For example PKR "granite" - weight 9 tons

                  The nearest foreign counterpart?
                  1. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 9 December 2015 17: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    where does the monitor?
                    where does this analogy come from?

                    "Monitor" I'm talking about what is in the picture for your article - in this thread, initially there was a speech about it, I confess - I did not specify.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    what are the "monitor" disadvantages?

                    At least poor seaworthiness (especially if such a ship is also armored)
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The nearest foreign counterpart?

                    There are no foreign ones, only ours have thought of this and that. because the strategy was to overwhelm an enemy ship with one blow, from which they made huge rocket launchers, which very few fit on large ships (eagles, atlantes), and their range by modern standards is small. This concept did not materialize itself - although the missiles are practically unbreakable and the damage is terrible, you have to get too close to the enemy, which is fraught with a response, and enemy RCCs, although subsonic, can easily be shot down relatively, but there are too many of them to bring down everything.
                    But in general, "granite" I gave as just an example of a modern and rather old (sorry for the pun) weapon that can pierce any, even promising armor like a pencil cardboard, but why talk about potential anti-ship missiles with armor-piercing heads?
                    And then - remember how the Germans used a planning bomb against the battleship Littorio and what happened to him after that.

                    So, in the light of all this, I consider the revival of armor on NK to be unlikely in the near future, but this is my purely personal opinion based on attempts to analyze the available information.
                    And as for my opinion about modern ships in general, I believe that modern NKs are purely NKs in peacetime, when they only fight with the "Papuans" of their daish or use them simply as a barge with the KR. Changes in this appearance can only provoke a major conflict at sea, but I personally (and you, I think, too) really do not want this to happen.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      9 December 2015 23: 03
                      0
                      Quote: Albert1988
                      "Monitor" I'm talking about what's in the picture for your article

                      this is NOT a monitor

                      the hull of the most ordinary ship, without a superstructure
                      Quote: Albert1988
                      At least poor seaworthiness (especially if such a ship is also armored)

                      How seaworthiness and lack of superstructure are related

                      and what side is the armor here
                      Quote: Albert1988
                      There are no foreign ones, only ours have thought of this

                      I will say more - even there are no carriers abroad
                      Granite will not fit into any UVP. and no plane raises such a KR
                      And then - remember how the Germans used a planning bomb against the battleship Littorio and what happened to him after that.

                      fly over the ship at an altitude of 6 km
                      in the era of the Aegis and St. 300, go ahead
                      1. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 10 December 2015 11: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        this is NOT a monitor
                        the hull of the most ordinary ship, without a superstructure

                        From the picture for the article this is not very visible - apparently the view is unsuccessful. And at the monitors, seaworthiness was very very low - the poor fellow flooded mercilessly even with little excitement, read - a lot has been written about them.
                        Let's assume that we really have just a "ship without a superstructure". That is, it turns out that we have pushed most of what is usually located in the superstructure into the hull. And this will automatically lead to an increase in the size of the hull, and here it will be necessary to try hard to fit everything in normally, without deviating from the optimal proportions of the ship's hull, and at the same time create tolerable conditions for the crew, etc. But in any case, our ship's dimensions will increase, approximately by the size of the superstructure - take at least our now well-known RTOs and cut off their superstructure 2 times, and add the remaining half to the hull - you can immediately estimate how much it will increase, and if so if done, for example, with the most modest variant of the "leader" destroyer project, then its hull will grow to about the size of an "eagle", although it itself is much smaller. And if you also add armor? So the displacement will also increase. Have you ever seen Yamato's belly? Or "Iowa" or, at worst, the most "thinly armored" Littorio? Especially when compared to modern ships? I now have models of Revel's Bismarck and Trump's Peter the Great - with the same length and comparable width, Peter's "belly" is 2,5 times smaller in volume than the "belly" of a German, and this despite the fact that Petya's superstructures are higher and decent. Of course, the huge underwater part was designed to balance not only a thick armor belt with an armored deck, but also armored superstructures with towers. Suppose we do not have large armored, and therefore heavy towers and superstructures, but we do have a thick armor deck and an armor belt - to withstand anti-ship missiles with armor-piercing heads - in any case, the displacement will increase, because the center of gravity will still shift.
                        Second, what was the worst thing for the armored ships? That's right - torpedoes, because they beat all the anti-torpedo defense very well, the main thing is to hit. According to calculations, Vaughn Yamato already had 4 torpedoes to be guaranteed to "dive".
                        and then there is such a modern weapon - "torpedo missile", and all this stuff is self-guided. While the ships are cardboard, they are mainly used as an anti-submarine weapon, but if the ships build up armor, it will be easier to hit them in the "belly", that is, for protection, you will also have to revive anti-torpedo protection, Pugliese cylinders, etc. And if we also increase the pro-torpedo boules on the underwater part, then our displacement will all the more increase and, most importantly, the running characteristics will deteriorate, because the hull will increase in width and seriously, and in general, an increase in the volume of the underwater part does not improve the dynamic characteristics of the ship. Will you say active anti-torpedo protection? In this case, it is easier and more active anti-missile protection to install, instead of the same armor - it will be more effective and cheaper.
                        That is, a lot of difficulties will come out that are extremely difficult to solve, and given the cost of modern ships with such additional hemorrhagic, they will simply become gold.
                      2. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 10 December 2015 11: 57
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I will say more - even there are no carriers abroad
                        Granite will not fit into any UVP. and no plane raises such a KR

                        This is so, but now there is no need to make such a monster - if the Americans created an air bomb 1.5 meters long and 19 cm in diameter, which pierces 4 meters of concrete, then it’s also quite possible to create anti-ship missiles that hit 500 mm steel armor. And to make the ship’s armor from cosposites - this ship is not only gold - it will become platinum!
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        fly over the ship at an altitude of 6 km
                        in the era of the Aegis and St. 300, go ahead

                        Why fly? In modern conditions, it is not necessary to fly up with high-precision weapons, but with a promising type of hypersonic missile launcher, you can generally shoot from the Tmu-Cockroach.
                        Understand, Oleg, the modern "projectile" confidently defeated the "armor", only active protection can effectively fight it, and passive armor can only play auxiliary functions - as protection against shrapnel, or as additional protection of the compartments where the crew is located, and vital nodes.
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 8 December 2015 13: 22
          +1
          Quote: Albert1988
          It is banal with the height of the radar))))) The fact that the figure can only look "into space", and the fact that it flies at a height of 10-20 meters above the water will be found only at the very approach, and this will reduce the probability of interception by orders of magnitude ...


          The photo is not related to the hypothetical proposed armored destroyer. As far as I understand Oleg.

          We are talking about the creation of a Burke type air defense destroyer, etc. in an armored case. i.e., all other functions were supposed to be left unchanged. And I see no reason not to place high X-band radar for the near air defense
      2. Santa Fe
        8 December 2015 10: 47
        +2
        Quote: Falcon
        Another thing is that the EPR will grow. Detecting will be easier and faster.

        EPR will definitely decrease,

        due to a decrease in radio contrast elements on the deck (in fact, it is empty, only armored UVP covers and a "booth" on the walls of which PAR are installed)
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 8 December 2015 13: 30
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          EPR will definitely decrease,

          due to a decrease in radio contrast elements on the deck (in fact, it is empty, only armored UVP covers and a "booth" on the walls of which PAR are installed)


          No, let's separate the flies from cutlets)))

          You propose to make an air defense destroyer armored.
          1. If we compare the ships of the new destroyer projects, the Englishman and especially the deadlock, then they are certainly less noticeable than the Berks.
          2. Since the armored car should be done from scratch, less modern techniques will also be applied there to reduce the EPR.
          3. Compare the destroyer armored car with the cannon. All the same, only the armor and, accordingly, more dimensions and displacement. those. and EPR more.

          At the zamvolt and so already
          "UVP covers and" booth "on the walls of which the HEADLIGHTS are installed)"
          only no armor.
      3. Operator
        Operator 8 December 2015 10: 54
        0
        The monitor shown in the figure does not have developed add-ons with antennas, so its radio horizon is limited to 10-20 km, i.e. 10-20 seconds of flight time supersonic KR.

        The reaction time of the missile defense system is multiple.
    2. Santa Fe
      8 December 2015 10: 49
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      and at what distance will the armored monitor, shown in the figure in the article, detect low-flying supersonic cruise missiles and, accordingly, what is the reaction time of the missile defense system of the monitor?

      Like the destroyer Arly Burke

      the antenna installation height is unchanged - in American Ajes, they hang on the tuning walls, i.e. actually in 10-12 meters above water
      1. Operator
        Operator 8 December 2015 11: 09
        +1
        The Zwolt is higher, the monitor is lower.

        By the way, you didn’t answer the question in essence - why did the Americans write off the battleship Iowa after it was converted into a missile ship in strict accordance with your idea?

        The answer that the Americans were afraid of building new missile battleships with potential adversaries does not have a single confirmation in reality.
        1. Santa Fe
          8 December 2015 11: 15
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          By the way, you didn’t answer the question in essence - why did the Americans write off the battleship Iowa after it was converted into a missile ship in strict accordance with your idea?

          The USSR collapsed

          along with Iowa, they also wrote off 400 warships, incl. 70 submarines, 9 atomic cruisers and 7 aircraft carriers
          Quote: Operator
          The Zwolt is higher, the monitor is lower.

          Why such a short-sighted conclusion
          1. Operator
            Operator 8 December 2015 19: 59
            -1
            In 1991, the USSR collapsed, and the US fleet remained, including SSBNs (clearly not against the Papuans). However, the Americans wrote off the battleship "Iowa", tk. an armored missile ship is useless - neither against a potential enemy, nor against the Papuans.

            Photo "Radar AN / SPY-3 on the destroyer" Foster "(2006) SPY-3 - multifunctional radar for Zamvolt", - O. Kaptsov. About the height of the radars, this is not my conclusion laughing
        2. adept666
          adept666 8 December 2015 12: 09
          +5
          Why did the Americans write off the battleship Iowa after it was converted into a missile ship in strict accordance with your idea?
          Firstly, it was not re-equipped exactly with Kaptsov's idea (I do not take any position in this dispute, since there are reasonable arguments on both sides, but the Iowa example is incorrect). Secondly, they were written off, they were written off, but very cleverly: they were turned into ships - museums. Not so long ago, in 2014, a friend of mine, a sailor (he served in the Navy, on a PWM) visited the United States on a "friendly" visit to the city of Norfolk and visited the open-air museum - BB-64. So here is his personal IMHO: the ship is in reserve and has not been decommissioned at all, all the equipment is in place, everything that should shine with fresh lubricant, the main caliber guns even now load just give the load from the power plant, and this man gave a lot to the fleet and knows about what he says, so not everything is unambiguous with these boats, they seem to be gone and they are still there ...
  16. rudolff
    rudolff 8 December 2015 10: 18
    +7
    Oleg, all this has already passed. Remember the Aoyva lineup after modernizing the 80s.
    The reservation is beyond.
    Main belt: 307 mm
    Traverses: 287 mm
    Deck: 37 + 153 mm
    GK towers: 184-432mm
    Barbets BGK: 234-439 mm
    Conning tower: 102-440 mm
    After modernization, the modern avionics, electronic warfare systems, radar, Tomahawk missiles, GARPun missiles, etc. appeared on the battleships. They only saved a little on air defense, but this problem is generally fixable.
    What is not your invincible? After all, it was possible to continue the concept with other projects, but ... They didn’t want to. Stupid?
    PS Regarding the GL towers. Oleg, why dissemble? You know very well that above the deck only the visible part of the iceberg and in reality the installation goes into the depths of the hull almost to the bottom.
    1. Kars
      Kars 8 December 2015 10: 37
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      What is not your invincible? After all, it was possible to continue the concept with other projects, but ... They didn’t want to. Stupid?

      The old ship. And too big. At the same time, it was planned to redo all 4 surviving. At the same time, they participated in the database. And then the USSR collapsed))
    2. Santa Fe
      8 December 2015 10: 42
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      continue the concept with other projects, but ... They didn’t want to. Stupid?

      Probably they are not profitable, otherwise armadillos will appear in other states

      which will automatically age all their naval aviation with light anti-ship missiles and generally change all the canons of ideas about naval battles

      "Pitt is the greatest fool in the world, encouraging a way to wage war, which gives nothing to a people that already have a primacy at sea, and which if successful may lose of this supremacy, "
      - Admiral Lord Jervis spoke as he watched the naval minister rejoice in the successful testing of a new invention, a submarine designed by R. Fulton.

      so there is a precedent in history, and not one
      Quote: rudolff
      above the deck is only the visible part of the iceberg and in reality the installation

      Thousands of tons above deck metal
      guess how it affects stability
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 8 December 2015 20: 27
        +1
        1. Oleg, if we are to talk about the main turrets, then they should still be considered as a whole, without "tearing" from their under-deck part. In this case, the center of gravity of the tower, as a single mechanism, will be below the level of the upper deck.
        2. A thousand tons on deck will not affect the stability of the ship. If below the waterline there are two thousand tons in the form of ballast, and the hull at the waterline level will be wide enough relative to the depth of the board. In Iowa, if I'm not mistaken, the width is about 30 meters with a draft of 10-11 m. Practically "aircraft carrier" dimensions.
        1. adept666
          adept666 9 December 2015 06: 01
          0
          A thousand tons on deck will not affect the stability of the ship. If below the waterline there will be two thousand tons in the form of ballast, and the hull at the level of the waterline will be quite wide relative to the height of the side.
          This is understandable, though there is one thing but ...
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 9 December 2015 09: 15
            +1
            The first time I saw this photo was in the 91st year in the Guinness Book of Records. There is another indicative, airborne salvo top view. I also wanted to place them here yesterday, but distracted. A good example of good ship stability. Having "thousands of tons on deck" not only does it not turn it over, but even the roll is not even noticeable, although the volley is such that the battleship sideways (judging by the trail on the water), like a feather moves. And this is with its dimensions, draft and displacement. Pyramid of Cheops on the water.
            1. adept666
              adept666 9 December 2015 12: 20
              -1
              A good example of good ship stability.
              Known shipbuilders to make cool cars before ... I support Oleg in some way, there is no romanticism in current ships smile
    3. adept666
      adept666 8 December 2015 13: 44
      +2
      What is not your invincible? After modernization, the modern avionics, electronic warfare systems, radar, Tomahawk missiles, GARPun missiles, etc. appeared on the battleships.
      It appeared, but it was all a point modernization with an unsuitable arrangement of weapons and equipment (the ship was not designed for the use of such systems, therefore, to cram into it everything that is now relevant, half the hull and superstructure must be redone).
      After all, it was possible to continue the concept with other projects, but ... They didn’t want to. Stupid?
      No, rational. Objectively, after 1990, in principle, no one threatens the United States at sea, and even until 90 this threat was very ephemeral (the potential of surface ships was not comparable). Why build expensive and super-protected ships if their whole task today is a floating self-propelled barge for modern weapons. However, with the strengthening of the fleets of the Russian Federation, China, India, it is quite possible that they will return to this concept. The same Zamvolt, in addition to missiles, has "shock" artillery weapons of a fairly large caliber, while on our cruisers the artillery is more likely for air defense.
      About the GL towers. Oleg, why dissemble? You know very well that over the deck only the visible part of the iceberg and in reality the installation goes into the depths of the hull almost to the bottom.
      Well, the peak is not the peak, but only Mark 7 on the deck was 121 t * 9 = 1089 t. And this is not counting the tower ... smile
    4. common man
      common man 8 December 2015 18: 01
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      After all, it was possible to continue the concept with other projects, but ... They didn’t want to. Stupid?

      Reservation of ships is relevant primarily for the USSR, and now Russia against numerous light RCC Americans who use carrier-based aircraft as carriers. Soviet-Russian anti-ship missiles always carried to the middle, heavy class. Against their armor is less effective and launching a new round of the arms race, armored ships themselves is clearly not profitable for amers.
  17. xomaNN
    xomaNN 8 December 2015 11: 16
    +1
    The operational experience of the US-based Zamvolt in three to four years will show clearly whether this "innovator" has essentially become a "Dreadnought" against the background of battleships, as a hundred years ago good
  18. Fess_blaga
    Fess_blaga 8 December 2015 11: 19
    +4
    By the way, comrades. Everyone's favorite "Peter the Great" (1144) has a reservation. Albeit not completely, but a lot of things have been booked:

    In the initial technical design of the cruiser, an underwater structural protection appeared from the system of compartments with a gas-reflecting armored wall. With the advent of powerful anti-ship cruise missiles among the Americans, surface-based structural protection was introduced into the project. At first, a six-inch main armor belt was provided along the waterline, but during the design process it was “eaten up” by the appearing volumes and weights of one or another equipment, which, as a rule, always turns out to be heavier than stated.

    The Fort complex of nasal anti-aircraft missiles, it was decided to leave without on-board armor protection (only covers), since they are located in the below-deck autonomous drums, inside which there are also launch containers. Thus, although the anti-aircraft installation was more cumbersome, a volumetric fire was excluded on a scale dangerous for the ship. But the Granit anti-ship missiles with Jewish fuel engines and powerful warheads were found to be advisable to protect with inclined armor, which is 100 mm in the area above the waterline, and 70 mm along the deck and below the waterline. There is a constructive cover from the bottom of the ship, in case of rocket fire, the mines can be quickly filled with water, in addition there is a system of various compartments designed according to the cellular system. The hangar for storing the Metel anti-submarine missile and torpedoes is covered with a similar “box” (this compartment is not protected on subsequent cruisers).

    The next volumes booked are the premises of the main command post and the combat information post, which are located inside the hull at the waterline level. Armored side walls - 100 mm, traverses and roof - 75 mm. Armor with bevels covers the room of auxiliary steam boilers, as well as the reactor compartment. In the stern, light anti-fragmentation armor protection is available on the sides (70 mm) and on the roof (50 mm) to protect the helicopter hangar, kerosene storage, helicopter ammunition and tiller compartments, over which there is also a “local” armored cover. There is no side armor as such, but a thickened belt is “inserted” above the waterline by 2,5 meters and lower by 1 m from the bow to the stern. Local armored cover also have artillery mounts, cellars and other weapon systems.
  19. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 December 2015 12: 16
    +1
    In the meantime: Zumvolt enters the Atlantic Ocean.
  20. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 8 December 2015 12: 27
    0
    The fact that they did not develop the idea after the modernization of the Iowa battleships, I agree with the comment above - This is not stupidity, this is foresight. No one else has such ships and it seems they will not appear soon. Since they spread rot about those who advocate booking, as well as scientists who talk about incorrect dating of history. According to the studies carried out by the Americans themselves, to sink an Iowa-class battleship it was necessary to hit at least 10 Mk48 torpedoes at the same time, which is practically impossible to ensure. Considering that these ships were not used alone, but as part of a group, the combat stability of such a unit was very high.
    I emphasize - for drowning, the protection against an underwater explosion itself was designed for about 300 kg of TNT. But, after being hit, the crew will begin the struggle for the survivability of the ship, the compartments, etc., etc. will be blocked.
    1. Assistant
      Assistant 8 December 2015 13: 45
      +1
      According to the studies carried out by the Americans themselves, to sink an Iowa-class battleship it was necessary to hit at least 10 Mk48 torpedoes at the same time, which is practically impossible to ensure.


      Or one "Granit" anti-ship missile system with an SBCH, which vaporized the hull from side to side.
      So against the Babai, he is redundant, against an equal opponent (yeah, the Russian Federation or China) - use-do not use, anyway, hide in the Volta.
      Of course, the option of a non-nuclear war between the Russian Federation (USSR) and the SGA was not considered - Clancy even wrote books about this. There he would definitely come in handy. Clancy's.
  21. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 December 2015 12: 29
    0
    Amphibious assault ships of the “Bob Hope” type sea shipping command, length 290 meters, full displacement 62 thousand tons. In total, the “hot standby” of the MSC is 25-like leviathans.

    That is, there is no difference between a warship and a ro-ro ship with a civilian team? smile
    It is noteworthy that you yourself write that these vessels are in the reserve of MSC. Keeping them active in the fleet is too expensive.
    Here I have a question for my esteemed opponent: what equipment requires placement in the add-in? Which of the systems located there cannot be placed inside the enclosure?

    Radar OVTS and ONTS. Because the earth is it, such an infection is round. And radio waves with frequencies within the working ranges of the radar propagate in a straight line. Below is the superstructure - lower is the range of the visible horizon - lower is the range of detection / capture / tracking of surface and low-flying targets - higher are the requirements for channel and reaction rate of air defense systems. What is the use of having an air defense system with a range of 250-300 km if, at the working altitudes of the anti-ship missile system, its radar can detect targets and issue a missile defense only for 15-20 km?
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2015 23: 04
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      That is, there is no difference between a warship and a ro-ro ship with a civilian team?

      How do Bob Hope and Algol differ from Mistral?
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Keeping them active in the fleet is too expensive.

      Do not make me laugh
      in the active composition of the fleet there are dozens of even larger units. Some names by 100 kilotons
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Below the superstructure - lower the range of the visible horizon

      How did you find the connection between the superstructure and the height of the antenna posts?
  22. gridasov
    gridasov 8 December 2015 12: 34
    +1
    The fleet cannot degrade because this definition, as such, is a derivative of human activity. Therefore, it is worth talking about the human factor, namely, about what degrades human consciousness, which is put under "lazy" conditions, when there is no real competition. Therefore, wars are stimulators of human development and his ability to realize his potential in creations.
  23. mav1971
    mav1971 8 December 2015 12: 39
    +1
    I agree with the opinion of Oleg Kaptsov in only one way.
    Armored ships at the moment - have the right to be.
    And their survival potential in a clash at the moment, is significantly higher than that of existing ones.

    But ...
    Armor is relevant for the past tense and present.
    tomorrow (in 5-10 years) - it will become irrelevant in principle.

    A modern ship in the Russian Federation will be designed for approximately 5-7 years.
    It will also be built for 5-7 years.
    For it is necessary to rebuild all the technical processes of allied suppliers from scratch.
    I don't think that rolling and cutting of armor plates, their welding in the modern conditions of Russian factories is a matter of minutes, "spit and grind". I think that a lot has been lost and it will have to be re-created.

    As a result, 10-15 years will pass.
    It seems to me that already in 15 years - the ideas of naval combat in the form of the exchange of massive strikes by RCC - will become obsolete.
    There will be that same railgun (it’s also electromagnetic) weapon.
    And this is not a child prodigy.
    Already tested weapons with energy in 35MJ.
    By 2020, Zumwalt will be equipped with such a gun.
    BAE Systems does not just do it. Namely, the ship version is being finalized.
    General Atomics - also involved in this process.
    The most famous and powerful weapon corporations.
    At 35MJ - the range is planned to be brought to 100-150km.
    Upon reaching the level in 65MJ (by the 2025 year) - the firing range is planned to be brought to 350 kilometers.

    Consequently, the creation of an armadillo as a means of protecting against RCC will immediately turn into a zilch.
    He will be defenseless against the railgun.

    Something like this.
  24. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 8 December 2015 13: 17
    +3
    I personally can’t say anything on the topic of the article. not competent in the issues discussed.
    However, I have a question for everyone (not rhetorical).

    And what is the meaning and purpose of such articles?
    For example, I’m interested in learning something and learning something without registering an extra unnecessary clearance and grinding tons of paper.

    What can I learn here?
    Why am I asking this question. I will try to specify. Because, in my experience, when a new product is being created for other branches of the army, a lot of factors and the forecast of their development (from weapon systems, interaction to supply, etc.) are evaluated in a complex.
    Often a very promising product in one is hacked or radically changed by a comprehensive analysis.

    Tell me, what is your opinion in the Navy? Is it possible to reason fragmentary? About armor, displacement, etc.?
    Because we say that they gathered before everyone else, discussed, decided something (I did not find this). Now, on new topics, here’s just the backbone of TTZ (20-30%), add the rest and do it yourself, and this is at least for research, at least for OCD. Is this a new modular platform type design concept?

    I do not mean the interconnection and layout of weapons and systems in the ship. This is understandable because he himself faced the plague difficulties of fitting into a seemingly large ship.
    I mean the conceptual study at the stage of the conceptual design.

    Thanks in advance for any response. Any personal opinion.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 8 December 2015 13: 41
      +2
      Quote: Abrekkos
      I personally can’t say anything on the topic of the article. not competent in the issues discussed.
      However, I have a question for everyone (not rhetorical).

      And what is the meaning and purpose of such articles?
      For example, I’m interested in learning something and learning something without registering an extra unnecessary clearance and grinding tons of paper.

      What can I learn here? ......


      Learn to reason and look at any situation from different angles.
      Although it is probably still genetic.
      But, if it is even a little, (and the vast majority have a little), it develops with the help of what some call a systematic approach.

      About the forums. when among hundreds and thousands of posts you see a couple or three posts that are knocked out of the total mass, either by the accuracy of the wording or by the non-standard approach, this is not a waste of time.
      Or at meetings and planning meetings, or in communication with workers, or in a smoking room, you can find the golden idea anywhere.
      This is a lesson!
      What do people think? why is their train of thought like this?
      And in the end, you yourself begin to think widescreen.

      what's the point of looping in displacement, speed, radar, anti-ship missiles?
      Discuss it here for the tenth time?

      Come on the other side.
      Imagine what you decided - yes! Be an armadillo!
      Look at the timing of the manufacture of such an armadillo, but think what is promising at the adversary?
      Oppochki, but there’s a lot of crap!
      Everything! Battleship - under the cloth!
      Again.
      You can go on the discussion a little from the other side. and often it opens up that no one for some reason noticed.
  25. YakimovSS
    YakimovSS 8 December 2015 13: 24
    +1
    Has anyone already calculated kinetic energy, say Yakhont / Onyx, and the thickness of armor required to protect it from it?
    On YouTube there is a video how a spark from Bala was flashing a 100 meter ship along and at an angle to the departure.
  26. barbiturate
    barbiturate 8 December 2015 13: 35
    +1
    Bravo Oleg, plus article, I completely have the same opinion, the armor on modern ships was needed and was needed before and was put on valuable ships, but it was difficult to drag it into the ship in the nuclear age.
    1. ava09
      ava09 8 December 2015 16: 02
      +1
      Quote: barbiturate
      armor on modern ships is needed


      Chatter like this is not needed by anyone, that's for sure. The whole question lies in a few major trends. The main one is not to go "From simple to complex", but to understand the essence of the global, to take into account its components. 1. What is the armor for the ship, which is modern, which is not very? For protection, right? 2. What for an air defense ship? For the same protection. It is clear that two levels of protection are more reliable than one. Now it is worth turning to the "simple", which is not so simple. Simply by virtue of their multiplicity and changing conditions, which, in turn, are also numerous. Therefore, no matter how many copies are broken by the "theoreticians" of shipbuilding, if they are put in the specific conditions of the actual construction of ships, then much of what they defend here in disputes will be instantly forgotten by them.
  27. ilkornej
    ilkornej 8 December 2015 13: 43
    +2
    They criticized the author of modern armored vehicles a lot, but no one answered his main question - what was the armor and structural protection replaced for? It’s not clear to me either. He is inclined to see the degradation of designers in this. But maybe I'm wrong? Maybe the air defense system has become many times more voluminous and heavier?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 December 2015 15: 15
      +2
      Quote: ilkornej
      They criticized the author of modern armored vehicles a lot, but no one answered his main question - what was the armor and structural protection replaced for?

      On active remedies.
      After the transition from unguided shells to guided anti-ship missiles, it became clear that they were easier to shoot down / disrupt the grip than to constructively defend themselves from the consequences of being hit (especially if you recall all sorts of delights, such as KSSh with detachable warhead underwater strike). And instead of armor on the ships appeared air defense systems and self-defense systems, ZRAK, ZAK, electronic warfare, false alarm jamming and other active protection.
      Actually, the same thing happens with today's tanks: heterogeneous armor, multi-layer armor, screens, dynamic protection ... but in the end they came to active protection - KOEP and KAZ.
      1. RPG_
        RPG_ 9 December 2015 12: 31
        0
        And where did the difference in weight go?
  28. sharkmen
    sharkmen 8 December 2015 15: 32
    +1
    I'm new here. Is it possible that uncles making decisions also read this site for laughs, and in particular, articles by O. Kaptsov. Probably if they would agree to try out such a method in practice, it would be kept secret until the RCC got into the ship’s hull of the last building. Suddenly, tons of stolen steel from the East went there? And here we are worried understand there upstairs or just sawing without regard to reality.
  29. tasha
    tasha 8 December 2015 15: 49
    +2
    Oleg, let's do a thought experiment.
    Take the cruiser Mioko from the shelf. Here is the weight distribution of its elements:

    Case 4040,8 29,8%
    Armor Protection 2024,5 14,9%
    Equipment and gear 882,0 7,0%
    Armament 1625,1 12,0%
    Powerplant 2730,2 20,1%
    Fuel and lubricant oil 1884,0 13,9%
    Fresh Water Reserves 116,9 0,8%
    Else 248,1 1,9%
    Displacement from 2 / 3 reserves 13 551,4 100%

    We throw out weapons, a power plant, fuel, fresh water (only about 6500 tons) and begin to create. Where do we start? Let's first bring the thickness of the deck to 100mm. What weight will be added?
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2015 23: 38
      0
      Quote: tasha
      and start to create. Where do we start?

      Great comment
      I was waiting for this from the very beginning
      Quote: tasha
      We throw out weapons, a power plant, fuel, fresh water (only about 6500 tons)

      We throw out part of the body
      it’s no coincidence -
      Bainite perforated armor protection and Krupp armor steel differentiated in thickness, included in the power pack (partially save on frames and cladding)
      and, yeah, we don't need the huge awkward Mioko superstructure

      Quote: tasha
      (total about 6500tons) and start creating

      7000 tons with the possibility of obtaining additional 2-3 thousand, because we have no international restrictions, and tons of displacement themselves are worthless
      Quote: tasha
      Let's first bring the thickness of the deck to 100mm. What weight will be added?

      1,8 thousand tons with a citadel length of 100 meters
      1. tasha
        tasha 9 December 2015 07: 25
        0
        At "Mioko" armor plates were part of the power set, so part of the hull cannot be thrown away. However, our entire calculation is rather arbitrary, so that plus / minus a hundred or two tons of weather will not make it.
        So, at the start we have
        4000 body + armor protection 2000t + 1800t, only about 7500-8000t. The weight of the hull will most likely remain the same (even without an add-on), just otherwise the deck will fail to the keel, probably. Let's take 7500 because the length of the Mioko Citadel was 82
        1. tasha
          tasha 9 December 2015 07: 55
          0
          Let's throw out the weight of the equipment yet 800т (along with add-ons) i.e. We have a reserved box weighing 7000t.

          Now we plant rowers. Is there data on the weight of the Zamvolt power plant?
          1. Santa Fe
            9 December 2015 13: 16
            0
            Quote: tasha
            Those. We have a reserved box weighing 7000t.

            Good figure
            Quote: tasha
            Is there data on the weight of the Zamvolt power plant?

            why not

            http://gizmodo.com/5979608/rolls-royce-floats-the-biggest-marine-turbine-engine-
            ever
            MT30 has found application for the inclusion of marine frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers. Since each engine can efficiently produce between 25 and 40 MW (34000 to 54,0000 HP) power and weighs 24 tons when using direct drive systems - 84 if you include an additional base plate and generator

            total - 168 tons - two gas turbine engines with their beds and generators. Let the total weight of MO units, together with gas flues, transformers, switchboards and fuel system, be 1000 tons, that's all.
        2. tasha
          tasha 9 December 2015 08: 15
          0
          The width of the armor belt is 3,5m. Will we increase? Please note that under the Mioko project, with a load of 2 / 3 (approximately 10000t), he was supposed to protrude from the water at 3m.

          Regarding the weight, shipbuilders should be asked the approximate ratio of the weight of the hull set to the weight of the skin.
          1. Santa Fe
            9 December 2015 13: 22
            0
            Quote: tasha
            Will we increase?

            Of course, what to argue about
            Quote: tasha
            the approximate ratio of the weight of the body kit to the weight of the skin.

            explain the thought
            why is this parameter needed

            And here is the weapon!

            61-charging installation Mark-41, with full ammunition (48 ZUR, 13 Tomahawks + loading crane) has weight 230 tons
            detailed description -
            https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf

            155 mm artillery system "Zamvolta" (AGS) - 87 tons

            1. tasha
              tasha 9 December 2015 16: 18
              0
              It’s too early for weapons.
              Let's summarize the subtotals.
              Our output was a carrier ship without a superstructure, with a displacement of 10000-11000 tons, a length of about 200m, a width of about 20m, a side height of 8-10m, a draft of about 5m.
              The kit includes the Zamvolt's GEM analogue (1000t), fuel (1000t), some mechanisms, 100 crew, captain's whirlpool and ship cat Vaska.

              Armored belt 80-100m long, 3-4m wide, armor thickness 100mm, armored deck thickness 100mm
              Given the new technologies, perforated armor, Kevlar, etc., let's consider the reservation equivalent to 200mm without increasing weight. (?)
              The armored belt protrudes from the water at about 3m.
              PTP bully + 58mm, able to withstand 533mm with 200kg.
              Like so?

              Separately at cost
              The case of EM Arly Burke of serial construction cost about 500mln $. I suppose that the case of our carrier will cost about 1bn. (?)

              Any fundamental objections?
              1. tasha
                tasha 9 December 2015 16: 29
                0
                Quite separately, although I repeat. If you and I in our calculations on the principle of PPP at least somewhere spinning next to reality, then the question. With an armament factor of 3: 1, 4: 1, what was the cost of the 3500-4000t we used for the armor at Zamvolt (14500) spent on? (Every sailor has a jacuzzi and a ship cat? wink )
                1. Santa Fe
                  10 December 2015 00: 11
                  0
                  Quote: tasha
                  what is the cost of the 3500-4000t used by us at Zamvolt (14500) spent on? (Every sailor has a jacuzzi and a ship cat?

                  On the superstructure "from side to side" with a height of 9-storey building

                  and compensation for its windage and negative impact on stability
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 10 December 2015 05: 36
                    0
                    How much does this add-in weigh?

                    The displacement is locked 14000 tons, at the level of the cruiser 2МВ.
                    The total weight of the hull and armor (!) Mioko was 6000t. Is it possible to assume that the designers of Zamwolt, taking into account new technologies and materials, received a case comparable in protection to Mioko? Pay attention to the lower fuel reserve of the zamvolt, in comparison with the same Mioko, the lower weight of the GEM. Here's the question - where and how are the freed tons spent? I hope not on the cobblestones laid on the bottom of the ship to compensate for the loss of stability.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      10 December 2015 08: 09
                      0
                      Quote: tasha
                      Is it possible to assume that the designers of Zamwolt, taking into account new technologies and materials, received a case comparable in protection to Mioko?

                      No you can not

                      A) Zamvolt layout excludes the installation of armor
                      B) Zamvolt is designed to remain as inconspicuous as possible for the enemy. But there are situations when a battle is inevitable. (excerpt from Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap, 2007)
                      Quote: tasha
                      How much does this add-in weigh?

                      quite a bit
                      900 tons of composites, with installed radars and m.b. will be 1000

                      But the overturning moment from her - you swing
                      9 Tall Storey House

                      Quote: tasha
                      I hope not on the cobblestones laid on the bottom of the ship to compensate for the loss of stability.

                      It looks like cobblestones
                      1. tasha
                        tasha 10 December 2015 10: 10
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        A) Zamvolt layout excludes the installation of armor


                        Please explain.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It looks like cobblestones


                        Alas, we can only speculate. It is possible that the weight went to energy storage, and it is possible that to the internal citadel.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        10 December 2015 11: 26
                        0
                        Quote: tasha
                        It is possible that the weight went to energy storage, and it is possible that to inner citadel.

                        An unprecedentedly large superstructure, as tall as a mast at the berk

                        creating unprecedented sailing and overturning moment

                        2. The Yankees themselves admitted that the zamvolt is not able to withstand the blow. And hopes only for freedom stealth
                      3. tasha
                        tasha 10 December 2015 13: 42
                        0
                        Mioko superstructure height - 18m - 9 tiers. Squares must be considered and compared. They could compensate for the loss of stability by increasing the length and width of the hull. Does this difference weigh the 4000t that we lost - we need to think about it.

                        2. If you get the Yankee what kind of blow Zamvolt holds and which does not hold - consider that you have secured a bust in your homeland.
          2. Santa Fe
            9 December 2015 23: 38
            0
            Quote: tasha
            The case of EM Arly Burke of serial construction cost about 500mln $. I suppose that the case of our carrier will cost about 1bn. (?)

            Any fundamental objections?

            Of course

            Burke’s case costs 1 / 20 of its value and amounted to about 111 million dollars for DDG-109 (I have lost my proof, unfortunately, a long time ago)

            indirect evidence of the insignificant cost of the corps are data on the cost of all Mistral and Izumo
            as well as:

            article: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=62942

            and report to us congress Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs, April 19, 2011
            (p. 20)

            case with EU and all mechanisms, not including weapons - 600-800 mln. Dollars. With the established by Aegis, the cost of the destroyer will surpass 2 bln.
            Quote: tasha
            with a displacement of 10000-11000 tons, a length of about 200m, a width of about 20m, a side height of 8-10m, a draft of approximately 5m.

            By 17 thousands of tons of full military / cargo (Baltimore) a universal warship will be built, with shock potential, like two Orly Berks. And combat stability, which has no analogues among other modern ships. The armored vehicle is practically invulnerable for small-sized anti-ship missiles (harpoon / exoset / Turkish SOM / Japanese Type90 / European NSM / our export Caliber and Uranus)

            200 length meters.
            Ideally, shorter and slightly wider - for better seaworthiness and stability of the ship, as art. platforms + additional volumes inside the case, come in handy

            why do we need an 10-meter board, only in the bow, taking into account the bulwark
            and the sediment will be more

            although it's all the little things
            1. tasha
              tasha 10 December 2015 05: 07
              -1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              a corps with electronic devices and all mechanisms, not including weapons - 600-800 million dollars


              I write that the cost of our carrier will be about 1 billion. Without weapons, but with mechanisms. And this is the lower limit.

              Do you agree with the assessment of your reservation at 200mm? Is this enough for combat stability, which has no analogues among other modern ships?

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              why do we need an 10-meter board, only in the bow, taking into account the bulwark and the draft will be more


              At this intermediate stage, only 3m sticks out of our carrier above the water.
              1. Santa Fe
                10 December 2015 08: 15
                0
                Quote: tasha
                I write that the cost of our carrier will be about 1 billion. Without weapons, but with mechanisms

                It turns out that it is more expensive than Burke by 200 million dollars (10%), weapons and Aegis have not changed

                ps / we still have a load reserve. 200-meter "Mioko-2015" is clearly capable of carrying more UVP than 150-meter Burke
                At this intermediate stage, only 3m sticks out of our carrier above the water.

                how high was myoko's side height?
                the surface part, from the water level to the upper deck
                1. tasha
                  tasha 10 December 2015 10: 15
                  -1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  It turns out that it is more expensive than Burke by 200 million dollars (10%), weapons and Aegis have not changed


                  Not. Burke Corps - 500mln. 1 billion is the lower limit of the cost of our carrier in serial (!) Construction without taking into account the cost of R&D for the case and mechanisms. For the same R&D, they included the construction of a running model of the same size to test ways to hide the thermal trail, for example.
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 10 December 2015 11: 03
                    -1
                    Those. I believe that booking a case leads to a cost increase of at least two times. Not due to the cost of materials, but due to the cost of work, increase in construction time. It is one thing to weld a hull of steel, another thing is to work with armored plates.
                    So if 700mln is a berk corps, then 1,4 billion is an armored berk corps. Then, the dependence is a little bit different. That is, 1,4 billion - the body of the armored berk and 1,5bn - the body of the armored modern Mioko.
                  2. tasha
                    tasha 10 December 2015 11: 25
                    0
                    As an example, even a hundred years ago, I give you an excerpt about comparing the prices of armored and armored cruisers of almost the same displacement.

                    The second weighty argument against the decision on the serial construction of squadron armored cruisers was their high cost. With the almost equal price of weapons with six-thousand-armored cruisers, the construction costs of the Bayan (mainly due to the expensive surface-reinforced belt armor) were higher by 2,0 (Varyag) - 2,4 (Askold) million rubles . The current cost of the Bayan (897 rubles) came close to the cost of squadron battleships (Peresvet 900 rubles, Retvisan 984 rubles) and left far behind the cost of a ton of displacement of long-range armored reconnaissance (Askold 760 rubles, “ Varangian "769 rub.). This was a powerful argument - for the price of two Bayans, three Askolds could be obtained. He became decisive in choosing the type of cruiser 1 rank for the combined program 1895-1898 gg.

                    However, in fairness

                    It remains to be noted that both December 1897 admiralty meetings were decisive not only for the composition of the nearest shipbuilding programs, but also in many respects for the fate of the Russian naval forces in the Far East. Show your admirals more insight and express yourself instead of the armored deck 6 thousandths of 1 rank for building even fewer high-speed armored cruisers (at least with the Bayan’s “Elzvik” weapons), the course of naval battles near Port Arthur, and with them the entire Russo-Japanese the war could have turned out differently.

                    So what is there to count and what to fight for? wink
                  3. Santa Fe
                    10 December 2015 12: 06
                    +1
                    Quote: tasha
                    even a hundred years ago

                    How has metal technology changed? how many times did labor productivity increase?

                    What seemed important a hundred years ago doesn't matter now. Aegis costs three times as much as the whole Burke with its hull and powerplant
                    Quote: tasha
                    the cost of building the Bayan (mainly due to the expensive surface-hardened belt armor)

                    As well as more powerful weapons
                    Quote: tasha
                    This was a powerful argument - for the price two "Bayan" could get three "Askold"

                    Pretty strange calculation.

                    with differences in the sweat value of only 100 rubles. (~ 15%)
                    So what is there to count and what to fight for?

                    one ammunition of a modern destroyer will turn out like a hull with armor and mechanisms

                    there is something to protect
                  4. tasha
                    tasha 10 December 2015 12: 55
                    -1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    one ammunition of a modern destroyer will turn out like a hull with armor and mechanisms


                    What is this for? Here's the task for you - transfer the cost of the Varyag cruiser (without mine-artillery weapons - 4233240 rubles) to current rubles.
                  5. tasha
                    tasha 10 December 2015 13: 47
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    How has metal technology changed? how many times did labor productivity increase?


                    I do not argue. Here's another. In 1940, the average income of an American household was 25 cents per hour, in 2014 - 12 dollars per hour. Growth in 50 times. What is the clock you know?
              2. Santa Fe
                10 December 2015 11: 37
                +1
                Quote: tasha
                due to the cost of work, increase construction time

                Read how Cleveland and Baltimore were built

                or is progress moving in the opposite direction?
                Quote: tasha
                Those. I believe that booking a case leads to a cost increase of at least two times.

                If you find any way to confirm your postulate - it will be generally great
              3. tasha
                tasha 10 December 2015 13: 20
                -1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                If you find any way to confirm your postulate - it will be generally great

                For example, I suggested that you compare the cost of the armored Varangian and the armored Buyan. Are you not interested in finding out yourself?
          3. Santa Fe
            10 December 2015 11: 27
            0
            Quote: tasha
            Not. Burke Corps - 500mln.

            What not

            where the figure comes from
            without taking into account the cost of R&D for the case and mechanisms.

            R&D will be needed in love caseif the Russian Federation decides to create a new destroyer (ocean defense ship with strike functions)

            the cost of R&D depends on the series
            and what kind of research and financial problems the enemy will have)))
          4. tasha
            tasha 10 December 2015 13: 03
            -1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What not
            where the figure comes from


            You won’t believe it - from Wikipedia, the cost is in 2005 year. Adjusted for inflation - 700-800mln. But in this case, the cost of our carrier will be at least 1,5bn.
      2. tasha
        tasha 10 December 2015 10: 29
        0
        Quote: tasha
        how high was myoko's side height?
        the surface part, from the water level to the upper deck


        5,95 m and 9,8m stem.
        But we do not have add-ons yet, and the width of the armored belt over the water is 3m. That is, at 3 we will build from non-alloy steel, for example, a huge hangar?
        1. tasha
          tasha 10 December 2015 10: 57
          0
          What is all this for? More or less determined by the size, weight, armor, cost of the carrier, we will begin to arm it. Count volumes.

          Here's another pitfall. Armor belt Mioko with 2/3 displacement (ours 10000-11000 tons) stuck out of the water for 3m. "With a design displacement of 2/3 of the reserves, they should have protruded from the water by 3,04 m, in fact, due to overload, this value decreased to 1,80 m"
          See what I'm leading to?
        2. Santa Fe
          10 December 2015 11: 44
          0
          Quote: tasha
          That is, at 3 we will build from non-alloy steel, for example, a huge hangar?

          why do we need a hangar?

          we will build a pyramid shaped casing

          in addition to rational armor installation angles, we will get significant savings by reducing the area and weight of the armor deck. And what we will save - we will find where to spend wink
          Quote: tasha
          Count volumes.

          you can safely skip this
          any modern apparatus, mechanisms and equipment are compact
          crew less than 6-8 times
          Quote: tasha
          in fact, due to overload, this value dropped to 1,80 m "

          Add thousands more tons, we don’t have Washington agreements
          the limit is 17-20 thousand. why? the Chinese (Type 55) and ours with their Flurry are guided precisely by this / that

          the metal itself does not cost anything against the background of the "filling"
        3. tasha
          tasha 10 December 2015 12: 47
          -1
          I suggest that you conduct an approximate calculation of the cost, size and weight of the carrier ship with a more or less acceptable reservation. Since we are not shipbuilders, even theoretical, we take the Japanese cruiser Mioko as the basis, the data for which are more or less known. If you noticed, then with extremely approximate (!) Calculations, I take all the assumptions from the calculation of the development of technologies and materials. For your part, I come across exclusively, excuse me, with slogans and amazing inattention. With sincere bewilderment ...
        4. tasha
          tasha 10 December 2015 12: 50
          -1
          By the way, how did you get the number 1800 tons of weight increased to 100 mm deck armor Mioko?
      3. tasha
        tasha 10 December 2015 13: 59
        -1
        In one of your articles, you quoted the cost of a Neolinkor with a displacement of 57000 tons - about 10 billion dollars. Even if we consider the cost of weapons and electronics in 4bn, then we still get into a less understandable dependence - every 10000 tons - about 1 billion.
        But here with the armor, alas, there will be no such dependence. What is 200mm at 57000 neolinkor (in the original - 100mm winked ) that 200mm has 15000 neocracer.
        Ok, let 300mm. Do you think this is enough?
  • tasha
    tasha 9 December 2015 18: 02
    -1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    explain the thought
    why is this parameter needed


    Most likely, shipbuilders are aware of some correlation between the weight of the set of the ship and the skin, the equation of existence, like in airplanes. Heavy armor plates are harder to set, otherwise there will be no strength. Somewhere formulas came across, but you need to consider a lot of mind, however .. Sopromat.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 8 December 2015 15: 56
    +4
    Interestingly, the author knows that armor is installed on Kuza and Kirovs. That on Kuza it is combined, multi-layered. In the USSR, very serious attention was paid to the protection of ships. There was a project "Bastion". Within the framework of this project, full-scale sections of the hulls were built, which were fired at the ranges. Various protection schemes were tested on them. I saw such compartments in 1982 at the ChSZ, and before that at the Yantar Shipyard.
    In general, the author's admiration for Japanese WWII ships is touching. And Oleg knows about the "Catastrophe of the Second Fleet" in 1934. Then the Japanese fleet was caught in a typhoon during an exercise. Almost all ships were severely damaged, and the destroyer "Tomozuru" capsized. All because of the desire to cram as much as possible into the least possible displacement. Because of this, the stability and strength of the ships suffered greatly. After this incident, the Japanese were forced to seriously modify their ships.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 8 December 2015 16: 22
    +1
    By the way, if the author had placed the silhouettes of Japanese cruisers here, then it would have become clear that their superstructures are not so small. It is comparable to Burke.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 8 December 2015 16: 22
    +1
    Well, I said that "the empire will surely strike back" ;-)
    Damn, I already ate the popcorn ...
    But in essence. Well damn foolishness is the same. How can? Soon we will memorize the arguments and examples by heart ... But the owl does not climb the globe.
    Because the globe is round! A long owl!
    The dispute "armor is not armor" is a priori unpromising in this regard, that in fact, this is not a dispute about the very fact of presence or absence, but a dispute about the balance ... And then sheer subjectivism begins - because no one can evaluate the real effectiveness of this or that scheme - simply because of incompetence. Kaptsov is a typical "InternetExperd" who has read a lot of clever and not very books, but due to the lack of special education, an amateur made his own conclusions and believed in them with all the energy and aggression of a "neophyte". "there really is no God except the battleship and his prophet Kaptsov" - you can certainly believe in the second coming, but this does not at all prove its inevitability ... By the way, try to prove something logically to a believer ... I'm afraid that the result will be the same as here. Faith is illogical.
    On the other hand, we, for the most part, are also not specialists in military shipbuilding, and in some way we also project our own experience and knowledge onto the situation. But still, we focus more on logic. Again, there are clearly more "techies" on the part of "anti-armor" ... ;-) Which again indirectly confirms point 1.

    Well and as a summary:
    There is armor, and moreover, it is being improved and introduced into the design in the form of a variety of passive structural protection systems. But the logic of the development of technology and the improvement of automation of aiming systems leads to the fact that active methods of defense and defense prevail over passive ones. And if someone is not satisfied with the TS "percentage-quantitative" indicators - this is his personal grief.
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2015 16: 43
      -2
      Quote: Taoist
      But in essence. Well damn foolishness is the same.

      And one more thing to add: oooh

      Not a single technical example or calculation attempt. Nothing but chatter about 300 signs about the "field of secondary defeat" and so on. Bullshit, which immediately becomes personal. because in fact you have nothing to answer.

      ps / Where is there a "vomit" smile?
      not very similar but still lol
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 8 December 2015 17: 14
        +1
        I wrote that these things are "your difficulties" ... at one time they gave you examples and calculations - well, you declare them "wrong" ... Why should you shake the air in vain? If you "do not see the gopher, then this does not mean that he is not there" (c).
        And then all this is just "Show Must Go On"
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 8 December 2015 18: 15
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          I wrote that these things are "your difficulties" ... at one time they gave you examples and calculations - well, you declare them "wrong" ... Why should you shake the air in vain? If you "do not see the gopher, then this does not mean that he is not there" (c).
          And then all this is just "Show Must Go On"

          And here it is doubly .... That's just understanding psychology and reading a few people I will have to admit that this is not the end winked After all, if a person a priori considers his evidence more correctly and responds to any sound attack with a large volume of refutations (even if they are repeated, and not in the subject, and with even bigger numbers, etc.), then the logical and prudent arguments for him are nothing mean. For all the same, you need to assert yourself in your innocence ...
          So, get some popcorn and beer wink hi
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 8 December 2015 18: 11
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, I said that "the empire will surely strike back" ;-)
      Damn, I already ate the popcorn ...
      But in essence. Well damn foolishness is the same. How can? Soon we will memorize the arguments and examples by heart ... But the owl does not climb the globe.
      Because the globe is round! A long owl!
      The dispute "armor is not armor" is a priori unpromising in this regard, that in fact, this is not a dispute about the very fact of presence or absence, but a dispute about the balance ... And then sheer subjectivism begins - because no one can evaluate the real effectiveness of this or that scheme - simply because of incompetence. Kaptsov is a typical "InternetExperd" who has read a lot of clever and not very books, but due to the lack of special education, an amateur made his own conclusions and believed in them with all the energy and aggression of a "neophyte". "there really is no God except the battleship and his prophet Kaptsov" - you can certainly believe in the second coming, but this does not at all prove its inevitability ... By the way, try to prove something logically to a believer ... I'm afraid that the result will be the same as here. Faith is illogical.
      On the other hand, we, for the most part, are also not specialists in military shipbuilding, and in some way we also project our own experience and knowledge onto the situation. But still, we focus more on logic. Again, there are clearly more "techies" on the part of "anti-armor" ... ;-) Which again indirectly confirms point 1.

      Well and as a summary:
      There is armor, and moreover, it is being improved and introduced into the design in the form of a variety of passive structural protection systems. But the logic of the development of technology and the improvement of automation of aiming systems leads to the fact that active methods of defense and defense prevail over passive ones. And if someone is not satisfied with the TS "percentage-quantitative" indicators - this is his personal grief.

      How do I agree with you !!!! good drinks hi
  • tasha
    tasha 8 December 2015 16: 25
    +1
    At one time, I came across an interesting article. Pay attention to the "Stryker" Rene Loire
    http://technicamolodezhi.ru/rubriki_tm/voennyie_znaniya/shag_v_nikuda
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 8 December 2015 17: 13
    0
    what equipment requires placement in the add-in? Which of the systems located there cannot be placed inside the enclosure?


    Radar complex antennas. The horizon has not yet been canceled. And if you do not raise them as high as possible, then you will "see" a maximum of 5-7 km. A ship at a distance of 10-15 km will be inaccessible to your fire. You simply cannot aim the weapon complex at him. Or you will have to use third-party target designation, which will make the ship not an independent unit but a kind of appendage to someone who can see.
    In the "war with the monkeys", target designation can be assigned to manned or unmanned aircraft. But in a war with an equal-tech enemy, flying radars will shoot down first.

    And I’m silent about the now fashionable AFAR. You do not put them inside the case. Steel, she, you know the radio signal screens.

    So the battleship at least crack, but you have to place the antenna farm outside. And I assure you a good hit in the AFAR panel will make the battleship blind and even dumb if the AFAR is used for communication in the compound.

    And "good hits" are possible on the way to the development of OD-ammunition. Now the power of their explosion decreases in the presence of finely dispersed inclusions in the air (water dust), but imagine that your battleship is "combed" with an ammunition with a capacity of 5-6 kilotons with a temperature in the area of ​​the explosion of 2500-3000 ° C. I suppose something after this will have to be picked out of the case in the base, and something and boiled ...
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2015 22: 59
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      And if you do not raise them as high as possible, then you will "see" a maximum of 5-7 km.

      And how did you find that?
      Quote: abc_alex
      So the battleship at least crack, but you have to place the antenna farm outside. And I assure you a good hit in the AFAR panel will make the battleship blind and even dumb if the AFAR is used for communication in the compound

      A satellite phone is used for communication - in each officer’s pocket))

      And the loss of the radar doesn’t mean anything yet

      the cruiser will fully retain PLO, Gauges and SAM with active GOS, which can be launched without radar, according to AWACS and other KUG ships
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 9 December 2015 12: 08
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And how did you find that?


        Horizon. This distance for the flat surface of the Earth is known.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        A satellite phone is used for communication - in each officer’s pocket))


        And there are semaphores or a flash telegraph. :) It's not about the officers chatting with each other, but about controlling the fire as part of the compound. About receiving a battle picture in real time, distribution of goals, etc.



        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the cruiser will fully retain PLO, Gauges and SAM with active GOS, which can be launched without radar, according to AWACS and other KUG ships


        Yes? And who will tolerate AWACS in the foreseeable future? Do you think that in a real war these "chandeliers" have a chance of more than one flight? AWACS and others like him will be exterminated in the first place and with incredible cruelty.
        However, I immediately said that this option is quite suitable for the "war with the monkeys".

        SAMs are far from all and not all trajectories are guided independently. Often up to a certain point, the rocket is fired from the ground. Moreover, it also illuminates the target from the "ground", because it itself cannot carry a powerful emitter.

        Kug ships? This is great, of course, but think for yourself where the battleships will be placed in the compound. Probably not in the center, right? His place is at the forefront, where his armor is useful. And in the absence of normal antenna posts, the "leash" will turn out to be very short.

        In short, as I said, such a ship will not be an independent unit. He will be able to work fully only with the support of other ships.
        1. Santa Fe
          9 December 2015 13: 28
          0
          Quote: abc_alex
          Horizon

          - Petka, appliances!
          - 150!
          - what 150?
          - and what devices?

          Where did the figure in 5 kilometers come from.

          installation height of the surveillance radar - 10-12 meters, like the destroyer "Berk"
          Radar for detecting low-flying targets - 20 meters

          Quote: abc_alex
          Moreover, it also illuminates the target from the "ground"

          SM-6, ASTER-30. Polement Redoubt

          do not require any backlight
  • Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 8 December 2015 19: 58
    0
    Our fleet has small artillery ships (IAC). Here you can try them, partially book. I do not mean the buoy, but those where the tower is from the tank.
  • yehat
    yehat 8 December 2015 21: 15
    0
    the article recalled a dispute over a century ago whether large armored fast torpedo spikes are needed
    I advise Kaptsov to study an exciting topic, the reasons why they are considered unnecessary, and then return to the topic and think it over before writing another article.
    ps oh yes ... I advise you to also read carefully to the history of the use of lightweight materials and lightweight structures. I modestly recall that the victims of optimization were the Titanic and the British largest battleship Hood, drowned from one hit.
  • iouris
    iouris 8 December 2015 21: 32
    0
    In a unipolar world, fleets will inevitably degrade.
  • As langley
    As langley 9 December 2015 02: 02
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: anodonta
    I’d take and interview admirals (although retired), Russian, American, Chinese, British and French,

    Are you talking about those who ordered a Shefield-type destroyer? Which burned down after the first battle, and did the admirals get the idea that aluminum superstructures are not ice? Or ordered Ticonderoga cr whose shells were cracking from overloads?

    in fairness, Mioko cracked from its length, there was an incident in the storm, then it was strengthened
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Oleg7700
    Oleg7700 9 December 2015 03: 04
    +3
    "Zumvolt went out into the ocean ...
  • magirus401
    magirus401 9 December 2015 04: 18
    0
    when he bucked, it’s not just an answer article, it’s a scientific work on how to reserve spaceships, and what would they furrowed in 5 zones ........, well, etc.
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 9 December 2015 10: 15
    0
    From personal experience I can say. that my thesis project of 1987 (project 20630) has successfully not only been embodied in "iron" today, but also bullets effectively with "calibers" in Syria! True, initially it was envisaged as a main. URAN missile defense missile system, but I have "reserved" for further upgrades the space for the URR launcher and vertical launch air defense, which was successfully implemented in the project. This is me about the effectiveness of the displacement-to-weapon ratio! Or compare, for example, "Sarych" and "Samum" - weapons are almost the same, but displacement 3: 1! Just tactical tasks. solved by ships, different! And the designers with EM. 956 did not foresee a lot and did not think it over, especially in power engineering. During operation (I served on the "Discreet" EM), these "jambs" were very expensive, and the service life of these very expensive ships in construction turned out to be short! mastodons ", they are unlikely to ensure victory at sea - in my book" The Sea Laughed "I talked about the Libyan events of 1986. and the confrontation between the KR "adm.Drozd" and the EM "Ognevoy" against 180 NATO corps and 3 aircraft carriers? So that???? "What is the strength in, brother"?!
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 9 December 2015 12: 38
    0
    Well, gentlemen, can we throw off at least one section of the ship’s armored hull and ask, as part of the Navy’s exercises, to fire at it with calibers (or something else)?
    1. Santa Fe
      9 December 2015 13: 29
      0
      Quote: RPG_
      shell him with calibers (or something else)?

      Do NATO fleets have calibers?
      1. Ares
        Ares 9 December 2015 17: 38
        0
        Similarly with the anti-ship missiles of the NATO countries, if armored vessels appear among potential adversaries, no one will steam and create whole concepts to deal with the new threat. They will put the bullseye. And this will make such ships even more vulnerable and no one will survive from the team. And the missiles will only become lighter and longer-range.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Ares
    Ares 9 December 2015 17: 07
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Probably they are not profitable, otherwise armadillos will appear in other states

    which will automatically age all their naval aviation with light anti-ship missiles and generally change all the canons of ideas about naval battles


    Oleg, you give the impression of a clever person. But this is ridiculous. Well, armadillos, say, will appear among the Americans, and tiny and cheap nuclear warheads with a power of, say, 0,1 ct will immediately appear on our ship and aviation PCRs. Neither significant pollution of radiation, nor a chance to survive in these vessels will have any. Warhead missiles can be easily changed directly on the ship. From a conventional warhead to everyone else to a nuclear warhead for American vessels.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 9 December 2015 17: 56
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    - Petka, appliances!
    - 150!
    - what 150?
    - and what devices?

    Where did the figure in 5 kilometers come from.



    Where does the figure come from?
    Tank from a height of human growth.
    An object 10 meters high from a height of 10 meters will be hiding behind the horizon at the 24th kilometer.
    That's better?
    Burke's height is 47 meters to the end of the mast. The superstructure is about half the height - 20 meters. AFAR hangs about 20 meters and does not "see" low-flying targets in the best way.



    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    installation height of the surveillance radar - 10-12 meters, like the destroyer "Berk"
    Radar for detecting low-flying targets - meters 20



    what equipment requires placement in the add-in? Which of the systems located there cannot be placed inside the enclosure?


    So is there an add-in or not? Or 20 meters - the height of the side?

    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    SM-6, ASTER-30. Polement Redoubt
    do not require any backlight


    But besides air targets, is it planned to shell something? Ships, the coast?
  • Al Asad
    Al Asad 9 December 2015 20: 18
    0
    There Zumwalt first went to sea
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 10 December 2015 09: 44
    0
    Dear experts, Man tried to express his vision of the further development of the Fleet and shipbuilding as a whole! True, it is not his fault that he was not taught to "look beyond the horizon", like many of you and me (VVMIOLU, KORFAK 1987). Pay attention to the forum for discussing aircraft - much more competent and more transparent than the naval one. Sailors from the pilots are more "secret", due to ... their own stupidity and shortsightedness, as well as ignorance of what to do and how to do it right !? I will give just one example: a couple of years ago, I suggested that the Defense Ministry consider one tactical method of using the forces of the fleet in modern naval combat and undeservedly forgotten? My thoughts in the BUPO MO were recognized as extremely interesting and redirected to the General Staff of the Navy, and those for modeling in the Navy! So what? And nothing! The answer of the "strategists and tacticians, the current Ushakovs" says that at the present stage of evolution and the state of the Russian fleet, such a "trick with the ears" is impossible? Therefore, what kind of ocean dominance can we talk about? For shipbuilding, read the 2020 Program
  • Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 10 December 2015 10: 00
    0
    It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad! "To increase labor productivity in shipbuilding by 7 (!) Times in 2013 (!) Years 2020-9,8 ?!" This, if now a hard worker sharpens the hub on the CNC continuously for 3 days, then in 2020 he will make it on the same machine in 3 hours? And such "tricks" in the Program are a dime a dozen! This all comes from incompetence and unprofessionalism - a shoemaker should not bake pies, but a baker should not make pies! When the USC is run by either insurance agents or "Komsomol members" like my fellow countryman Vova Shmakov (whom I have known personally for many years), we will have neither ships, nor money, nor factories! Philologist Rogozin, lawyer Medvedev, insurer Shuvalov, firemen Shoigu and Borisov, furniture maker Serdyukov, poet and model Vasiliev - do you want from these people to achieve the development of the modern economy, the military-industrial complex, equipping the army and navy? Either you yourself are naive people, or you are the same mediocrity and idiots! Therefore. I conjure you - "do not read the Soviet newspapers before meals! It can be harmful to your health!" Best regards, Konstantin K. By the way, the future belongs to SMPV? As a shipbuilder, I am telling you this, competently.
  • Glad
    Glad 17 December 2015 04: 55
    0
    Quote: aleks 62 next
    .... It already happened .... In the war between the North and the South .... The ship was called "Monitor" ..... Somehow it did not take root - "Monitor" with a little excitement turned into a submarine .... wassat

    There were attempts later. Diving MRK project 1231 "Dolphin", for example. The sailors were terribly lucky that this "miracle" did not come out of the Whatman sheets in metal.
  • Snzkgb
    Snzkgb 28 December 2015 05: 13
    0
    God forbid us from authors without a shipbuilding education writing about ships ...

    That is, the problem with the "extra" 4000 and even 5000 tons somewhere suddenly "evaporated."

    Slower by 1-1,5 knots this is an extra couple of thousand tons of displacement with similar parameters of the GEM.

    It is for this reason that the heavy cruisers of the war years, being twice as large as modern destroyers, were content with ECs of similar power (the difference is within 20%). Moreover, those heroes of the past were faster than any of the modern destroyers (33+ knots)
    Author, you are talking nonsense.
    1) The displacement of Zamvolt approaches 15.000 tons, i.e. Larger Zamvolta were only the late CRT type Baltimore and Des Moines.
    2) The speed of the SRT was bought with a terrifying ratio of length to width, coupled with the gigantic volumes of MO and KO that consumed more than 50% of the length of the hull below the overhead line.
    Take the same Baltimore as an example - the ratio of length to width is almost 10: 1, and the draft is only 7,3 meters. Those. very mediocre platform in terms of stability.
    Now let's take a look at Zamvolt - the ratio of length to width is already 7,4: 1 and the draft is 8,4 m.
    From the point of view of seaworthiness, maneuverability, stability, Zamvolt is much preferable to Baltimore. Which is faster than him as much as whole, God forgive me, 3 knots. Despite the fact that the volume of the Zamvolt power plant is about 30-40% of the Baltimore power plant.
    And I’m not even going to engage in a polemic that in the modern world speeds above 30 knots are simply not needed, because you can’t run away from anti-ship missiles with a seeker at either 30, 35, or 45 knots.

    I don’t even want to discuss nonsense about the lack of add-ons for a modern ship, the author does not understand what radar is, how it works; He doesn’t know why the new English ships of the ocean zone turned out to be so ugly (a hint is the radar height).

    Further. To book add-ons of the same Type 45 with armored plates 305 mm thick and higher (and against modern anti-ship missiles with warheads of 300 + kg TNT equivalent, not less, but better - more) will require not one and not two hundred tons located not just above the overhead line, and significantly higher than the OHL. What will happen to the metacentric height of the ship? I suggest that the author calculate it himself. Calculation Formulas M.V. and C.T. Google will tell the author of the vessel.