Military Review

Rocket against the ship. How will the battle end?

172



The spectacular launch of the rocket is fixed by camera flashes, but nothing is known about its entry into the target ship. The paradox has a simple explanation: no observer in his right mind would dare to be near the target.

It will take long hours before the sailors get to the “sacrifice” set in the open sea (a hundred kilometers from the launch site) and make some measurements. After that, the target, a rusty “galosh”, due to its dilapidated state, the consequences of getting PKR and the absence of any struggle for its vitality, will be sentenced to flooding on the spot.

As a result, "legends" are born about the incredible destructive power of the anti-ship missiles, capable of "churning the superstructure" and "cutting the destroyer along."

But what are the real consequences of getting PKR into ships? About this is another analysis of combat damage.

Punched armor of the cruiser “Nakhimov”

In June, the Nakhimov 1961 was towed from the Sevastopol bay on 45 - 50 miles towards Odessa and anchored. From a distance of 72 km, the rocket ship Prozorlivy launched a KSSC missile in inert equipment on the Nakhimov. The rocket hit the middle part of the cruiser in the surface part of the board and made a hole in the form of a figure eight with an area of ​​about 15 м2. The warhead of the missile pierced the cruiser through and made a round hole with an area of ​​about 8 m2 in the opposite side of the ship. The bottom edge of the hole was 40 cm below the waterline. The rocket engine exploded in the hull of the cruiser, resulting in a fire on the ship.

The following is a detailed description of the damage.

"The rocket hit the spardek and cruiser abutment joint. A hole in the shape of an inverted eight with a total area of ​​about 15 м2 formed at the hitting point. Most of the hole fell at the spardek, the smaller part - on board. inert gear. The missile "pierced" a cruiser from side to side and left the starboard side of the cruiser just under the foremast. The exit hole was a nearly circular hole of about 8 m2. The lower cut of the hole was on 30 — 35 cm below the waterline, and, until the ships of the rescue service reached the cruiser, he managed to take in about 1600 t seawater. In addition, the remains of kerosene spilled on the cruiser, and this caused a fire that extinguished around the 12 hours. "

Do you find contradictions here? And they are.

The supersonic “soft-bodied” ammunition (sand enclosed in a light metal shell), unexpectedly for itself, flew through the ship’s hull (which is no less than 20 meters, diagonally, through all bulkheads) and, when meeting at a large angle, pierced the bottom armor decks (xnumx mm). After that, he easily overcame the armor belt (50 mm of armor), leaving a round hole with an area of ​​100 square in it. meters, whose bottom edge was at 8-30, see BELOW the waterline.

Question one: is there stories naval battles are examples of how much faster (2 mach) and durable (98% mass - metal) armor-piercing shells caused similar damage? Punch through 150 mm of armor at an angle, not counting the numerous bulkheads and deck decks of structural steel.

Question two: while the rescuers got to the cruiser, 1600 tons of water managed to flow into it. That inevitably caused a roll, which no one straightened with counter-floods of the compartments of the opposite side - due to the absence of a crew on the “Nakhimov”. Yes, and to the rescue firefighters who arrived in the first hours was not up to it.

Rocket against the ship. How will the battle end?


Geometric problem for younger students.

The KSSH missile struck the cruiser in the area of ​​the 62 th frame (“just under the foremast”) and immediately collapsed due to its layout into two parts (warhead and engine).

In the case, in the area of ​​the foremast, ducts of the boilers passed through. Where, obviously, and flew the engine KSSH. From the same place - the shortest way to the bottom. Breaking through the duct cover, penetrating the shaft and finally losing energy, he fell on the grate and exploded. The explosion damaged a double bottom, which was no longer used to store fuel oil.

In the formed hole gushing water. Using the formula Q = 3600 * μ * f * [root of (2qH)], you can calculate the flow of water. Taking the hydrostatic head from the calculation for the depth of 6 meters, the hole radius of the entire 5 cm, and the coefficient. permeability (mu) per 0,6, we get impressive 240 tons of water per hour!

There was a roll, which is continuously growing. The ship sank deeper and deeper into the water and fell aside.

As a result, the lower edge of the outlet from the inert warhead of the rocket, which was originally OVER the waterline, by the time the rescuers arrived, managed to go under water at 30 centimeters.

The rocket did not penetrate either the armor deck or the Nakhimov armor belt. She flew higher through the lightweight hull structure. The question of the effect of RCC on armor remained open.

If you do not agree that everything was exactly that way, then shooting at Nakhimov was carried out in a non-Euclidean space. Where the supply of tons of outboard water by 1600 does not cause a heel and an increase in the draft of the ship.

It is worth noting that the KSSch rocket, by virtue of the 1950's technologies, possessed exorbitant mass and size dimensions, therefore, even being without a CU, it could cause a strong fire and cause serious damage. The emergence of such missiles in our time is excluded - a single, large target with a large EPR is too vulnerable when the air defense line is broken through.

As for the target itself, the layout and booking scheme of the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser was created under other types of threats and proved to be ineffective in the era of rocket weapons.

Pacific exercise scandal fleet

The command and staff exercises of the Pacific Fleet held in September 2011 made a depressing impression on the Kamchatka journalists. According to one version, none of the fired missiles could hit the target. Quite an expected result. The coastal defense complex “Redoubt” was put into service in 1966 and, by now, the weapon has fully developed its resource.

On the following day, a “analysis of the zheltyachka” from representatives of the patriotic media appeared, in which all previous statements about the failure of the exercises were refuted. Rockets successfully completed the flight mission. Proof - photographs of targets.



But the flywheel sensation has already been promoted. The number of questions has not decreased. Observers have noted the following oddities in this story:

First, the negligible impact of ammunition on the design of targets. The P-35 rocket of the Redut complex belongs to the family of super-heavy Soviet anti-ship missiles. With a length of ten meters and a starting weight of 4,5 tons, it is twice as heavy as the popular “Caliber” and 8 times heavier than any modern Western RCC!

Even being equipped with an inert warhead, this supersonic “cudgel”, logically, must tear down everything in its path, causing irreversible damage to the structure. Accompanied by the ignition of the pierced target from the torch of the working main engine RCC and an abrupt pressure jump inside the target body.

In reality, even the glass blocks of the portholes, which were in close proximity to the places of entry of the missiles, survived on the target of the PKZ-35 swimming pool.



Even more paradoxically, the second target looked like the PZhK-3 fireboat, which, according to the official version, was knocked down by the setting. In the first photo in the dark nothing is visible. On the second, made in the afternoon, the tiny boat bears no traces of missile hits.





Also, observers were confused by the time factor. According to official figures, the shooting took place on the night of September 17. The target was located two hundred kilometers from the coast. In the pictures submitted for refutation, dated the 17 day of September, the target with traces of the missile was already against the shore. How, in a matter of hours, the sailors managed to get to the place of execution of the PZK-35, take it in tow and drag it to Avacha Bay. In this case, the non-self-propelled barracks were supposed to move across the ocean at the speed of the squalling torpedo.

If there were no hits, then everything is clear, without question.

It is much more surprising if, despite defamation, the missiles did hit the targets. The nature of the damage is contrary to the legends of the great destructive power of the RCC.

Even without combat units, the strikes of multi-ton supersonic discs should have cut the boat and the floating gear in half. Such horror stories tell about the tests of the first subsonic CRPs, which allegedly cut the destroyer along and left a hole with an area of ​​55 square. m. in the armor of the unfinished battleship “Stalingrad”.

A rocket hit at Vereshchagino

A curious incident occurred on April 24 of 2000. In the course of training firing, the 854 coastal missile regiment of the Black Sea Fleet “covered” the Ukrainian ship “Vereshchagino”, which was carrying out a charter flight on the route Skadovsk - Istanbul.

In spite of timely notification, the cargo-passenger ship ignored the message for an unknown reason and, having missed the 13-s of the escort ships, penetrated into the closed area for navigation.



The homing missile did not know the difference between a warship and a civilian vessel. Released with m. Chersonese, the P-35 immediately targeted the radio-contrast object and successfully hit the target. Exactly! The results of hitting the P-35 in the superstructure are evidenced by a picture with a picturesque hole corresponding to the rocket contours. It remains to add that the small ship survived and safely reached Skadovsk on its own. The fire started was eliminated by the crew. The only victim was the third mechanic V. Ponomarenko, urgently taken to the hospital of the Black Sea Fleet.

Coordinated Force Attack aviation and fleet

Finally, a photo report from the international exercises RIMPAC 2010. Purely for aesthetic pleasure.

The old New Orleans helicopter carrier (of the Iwo Jima type, 1968 year) was used as a target. The length of its hull was 182 meters, the width of the flight deck 26 m, overall dimensions corresponded to the rocket cruiser of the Cold War era.

In the "New Orleans" got seven anti-ship missiles "Harpoon". Following it, the B-52 bombers struck it, hitting a helicopter carrier with five 900-kg guided bombs GBU-10. Finally, the doomed ship was attacked by an Australian frigate “Varramunga”, which threw seventy 127 mm shells into it.





For all the obviousness of the result, it is necessary to recognize that the sinking of the “old galosh” took an indecently long time. With the fact that real ammunition was used, and the content of explosives in the 900 kg bomb (429 kilogram of tritonal) exceeds its content in warheads of any, even the heaviest anti-ship missile.

For comparison, the 165-kilogram warhead of the popular Exeset rocket contains just 56 kg of explosives.

The modern Russian “Caliber” has several options for combat equipment: combat units with a mass of 200 and 450 kg. The features of their design, the number and type of explosives are classified, but the content of explosives of them is obviously less than in the 900-kg aerial bomb.

Half a century ago, in the little destroyer Eilat (1700 tons, less than a modern corvette), within an hour, three P-15 missiles were carried, carrying combat units weighing 500 kg. Although it seemed to be enough alone. As a result, Eilat was drowning for an hour, and from 200 the people of its crew survived 153.

How much time will it take and missiles and other means of air attack to destroy a large, well-tailored ship with developed constructive protection?
Author:
172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Maegrom
    Maegrom 10 February 2016 07: 04
    0
    Always waiting for your articles, thanks.
    1. Max_Bauder
      Max_Bauder 10 February 2016 13: 30
      +5
      The author is nonsense. Firstly, the ships of the Second World War were equipped with thick armors, the current ones with thin ones due to the lack of artillery, missiles instead, secondly there are also missiles for such thick ones if necessary with a nuclear warhead. And in general, why does the author and people like him think that fools are sitting in the Ministry of Defense and don’t know about minor injuries, every rocket is constantly tested there after development on real targets or imitating, then they are accepted into the troops. For example, the same warrior, armata, ak-12 is still, as it were, on a trial period, although separate units enter the troops, but there is no mass character. So with missiles, if calibers, yachts accepted, then their effectiveness has been proved. If you find, look at what kind of destruction rockets launched from the Caspian Sea in Syria arranged.
      1. gergi
        gergi 10 February 2016 14: 54
        +8
        The main objective of the attack is to disable, abandon the mission. Drown? Well, drown, if you're lucky. Having received even one rocket on board, it is unlikely that it will be possible to carry out a further military campaign.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. bolat19640303
        bolat19640303 10 February 2016 18: 26
        +9
        Well, about nonsense maybe too ... This is the opinion of the author. The amount of ammunition necessary for a reliable destruction of an object (not necessarily instantaneous sinking, this is not always necessary to disable a ship) is different. It all depends on the place, angle, etc. hit.
        in general, the articles of O. Kaptsov, in contrast to the mass of others, can be read. Thanks "+".
      4. Ustinov 055 055
        Ustinov 055 055 15 March 2016 11: 31
        +1
        I was at the exercises in the Baltic Fleet aboard 055, our goal was to shoot down anti-ship missile systems with anti-aircraft systems of Peter the Great, and as a result, after getting into Uraquette 2 combat air defense systems, it passed dangerously close to us, for which they then removed someone. And on TV about those teachings they told a completely different story, so it’s not always what is written and shown is true
      5. Ustinov 055 055
        Ustinov 055 055 15 March 2016 11: 31
        0
        I was at the exercises in the Baltic Fleet aboard 055, our goal was to shoot down anti-ship missile systems with anti-aircraft systems of Peter the Great, and as a result, after getting into Uraquette 2 combat air defense systems, it passed dangerously close to us, for which they then removed someone. And on TV about those teachings they told a completely different story, so it’s not always what is written and shown is true
    2. Trigger-Happy
      Trigger-Happy 10 February 2016 15: 56
      +4
      Kaptsova, the topic of missiles and boats does not let go, apparently, well, no matter how. I suggest that he switch his attention to tanks, for a change. There, too, armor and missiles are present .......
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 February 2016 07: 05
    57
    This leads to the conclusion that we must return to the artillery ships. lol Then the justification for the armor will be correct and the missiles with "jambs" will only confirm the conclusions of Comrade Kaptsov. winked
    For me, the analysis of flights in perspectives favorable to the author does not look like proof of the erroneous development of technology. Either the missile didn’t get there, it was inert, then diarrhea, then scrofula.
    Here it is necessary to "stretch" the calculations of the complexes that "hit" the target. Here it is necessary to tighten the designers, who must refine their products to normal characteristics ... Here we must fight against eyewash, so that failures in the exercises lead to a real debriefing and subsequent conclusions in terms of correcting shortcomings.
    And then right away: either missiles are not a couple of shells, then they didn’t hit the armor (what, is it necessary to hit the armor ??), then if they hit, then they didn’t penetrate, etc.
    "Krasny Kavkaz" was also drowned with blanks and laughed that it was not sinking. And they used combat, that's all. Or is this not an example? Or again we will begin to pour from empty to empty.
    And the fact that serviceable missiles regularly hit (the same "Vereshchagino") is not an indicator of quality? So a blank got into him. And if a combat one and exploded? Okay, superstructure - there would be no superstructure. The ship is effectively out of action and is a useless floating trough. Or is it necessary to heat? Well, they came off in New Orleans ... And what did that prove? A banal game of numbers begins with banal conclusions of couch "experts" who have more and better.
    Personally, my opinion - they will not, Comrade. Kaptsov general reservation of ships at the level of cruisers (especially battleships) of WWII. They will not refuse missiles in favor of artillery. And they will improve, look for new ways to incapacitate a ship (even if not to destroy it - it is enough to incapacitate in a battle in order to gain a tactical advantage), and not necessarily destroy it. They will develop in accordance with the realities of modern views and doctrines.
    So your conclusions, Comrade Kaptsov, are just a reason to fray languages ​​on a forum with the same numbers lovers ...
    S.U hi
    PS There was not long ago an article that raised real problems, interestingly written ... And then what, again, a return to the "beloved child" wink
    1. i80186
      i80186 10 February 2016 10: 20
      18
      I remember one hit was enough. Moreover, the missile, to put it mildly, is not very large and powerful.

      HMS Sheffield (D80) (Sheffield) - destroyer, the second ship of the Royal Navy of Great Britain, which was named after the city of Sheffield, in the county of Yorkshire. He became widely known due to the fact that on May 4, 1982 he was hit by an Exocet anti-ship missile from a Super Etendard aircraft owned by the Argentine Navy and sank on May 10, 1982.(C)

      But about the boats, already in our performance.
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 10 February 2016 16: 22
        -1
        A lot of controversial points. Indigestion of the number of anti-aircraft missiles say 1 in fact 2, rodents approached 15km why didn’t they shoot? After all, they had anti-ship missiles and 15 km was a small range for a missile boat, for sure, why the heck was it for us to use an antiaircraft missile system for shooting rodents ???? On the BDK there is an art system 130, like it has an aiming range of 15 km if I'm not mistaken, and indeed the car matters. The mirage has exactly 176 fluffs with a range of 15700.
        1. i80186
          i80186 10 February 2016 17: 31
          +6
          Quote: tilovaykrisa
          A lot of controversial points. Indigestion of the number of anti-aircraft missiles say 1 in fact 2, rodents approached 15km why didn’t they shoot? After all, they had anti-ship missiles and 15 km was a small range for a missile boat, for sure, why the heck was it for us to use an antiaircraft missile system for shooting rodents ???? On the BDK there is an art system 130, like it has an aiming range of 15 km if I'm not mistaken, and indeed the car matters. The mirage has exactly 176 fluffs with a range of 15700.

          They didn’t shoot because Tbilisi was sunk at the pier in Poti, like Dioskuriades in the same place. And more they did not have missile boats.
          The point is that for a fast moving target (30+ knots), two missiles were enough to make the boat disappear from the radar. But artillery for such purposes simply will not hit, from 15 kilometers, there the projectile will fly for 30 seconds at least.
          Well, why didn’t they shoot Malachites, but ktozh knows him. Most likely, they realized that they were shooting not at the missile cruisers, but at the guard, and they guarded the missiles for them.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 10 February 2016 19: 21
            +3
            Quote: i80186
            Well, why didn’t they shoot Malachites, but ktozh knows him. Most likely, they realized that they were shooting not at the missile cruisers, but at the guard, and they guarded the missiles for them.

            While asking for "good" from above, the distance was eaten. It is good that the commander independently made the decision of the "Wasps" (SAM of self-defense!) To attack the horsemen, otherwise they themselves would have received a gift on board. So, 08.08.08. It will hiccup for a long time with the shame of the overlying echelon of military command, starting with Stouretkin and ending with the OVU of the Black Sea Fleet. am
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 11 February 2016 10: 15
            0
            They shot "Wasps" because all Soviet shipborne air defense systems, starting with "Volna", were created as universal ones, with the ability to fire at high-speed small-sized surface targets.
      2. Ilya_Nsk
        Ilya_Nsk 30 August 2018 08: 51
        0
        For the sake of fairness, it must be said that the towed Sheffield got into a severe storm and, having taken an unacceptable amount of seawater through the hole from the rocket, sank.
    2. Olfred
      Olfred 10 February 2016 13: 41
      15
      at such a pace it can be said that the stick is better than the machine gun - silent, easy to use and multifunctional: you can hit, throw, put a fire ... the ammunition is unlimited laughing hi
  3. qwert
    qwert 10 February 2016 07: 12
    21
    The laws of physics have not been canceled. 400 kg of TNT is 400 kg of TNT and it will deliver a rocket or bomb without a difference. Of course, there will be more iron in the bomb, but there will be leftovers in the rocket, etc.
    Shorter than 400 kg of TNT that exploded inside the Zumwalt will never seem ticklish to him.
    And Oleg in his repertoire. Again as a troublemaker.)
    1. Andrey NM
      Andrey NM 10 February 2016 07: 34
      +9
      The question is where and how will these 400 kg explode. If we consider the explosion of a torpedo type 65-76 under the bottom - this is one, if the same 500 kg. explode in add-ons - quite another. The impact mediums are different, respectively, and the destruction will be different. How many torpedoes hit the Argentine cruiser? If memory serves, two upright times of war. Enough for him. There are many frames on the Internet where single torpedoes hit target ships, resulting in the target being split in half.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 10 February 2016 22: 03
        -2
        It is not a matter of exposure. Water is poured into a hole under water and not in a hole above water.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 10 February 2016 10: 23
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      The laws of physics have not been canceled. 400 kg of TNT is 400 kg of TNT and it will deliver a rocket or bomb without a difference.
      If we talk about the laws of physics, then it is not worth pulling out only one weight of explosives from them, even these "400 kg of TNT", whether they are only in bombs, will have a different effect if one bomb is dropped from horizontal flight, and for the second one is used topmast bombing , or, if one bomb is "normal" and the other is armor-piercing. Finally, bombs with the same quantity and composition of explosives, equally dropped from the same aircraft, can have different aerodynamic shapes, different types of fuses and different weights due to the thickness of their shell, that is, different effects on the same target. Physics for missiles with one weight of explosives will also be different already on the power of the rocket engine, to what speed it will accelerate the rocket. Well, and no less important, what will withstand this "400 kg of TNT", duralumin board, or ship steel, covered with armor plates, and even spaced apart. It is very good that Oleg is again in the role of "troublemaker".
      1. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 10 February 2016 11: 15
        0
        ..... It is very good that Oleg is again in the role of "troublemaker" ....

        .... belay ..... A paper wad (well, a very light and soft "substance") can kill if it hits .... Don't you think it strange ???? ... lol
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 10 February 2016 11: 57
          +7
          Quote: aleks 62 next
          A paper wad (well, a very light and soft "substance") can kill if it hits .... Don't you find it strange ???? ...
          As physicists say, if the cheese head is accelerated to the desired speed, then it will break through the concrete wall. What is strange about a gun wad? Nevertheless, not only an army body armor, but also a regular jacket from a hunting rifle wad will not break through. We must decide what we all take as a reference point, we consider the main thing to be steel saving, displacement limitations, the futility of protection against a nuclear explosion, a general increase in the survivability of the ship and the protection of its crew. What? Yes, not only with a gun wad, you can even kill with a blank shot at point blank range with a jet of hot powder gas ... And, what of this? No one here will be ironic over the uselessness of a helmet and body armor, but a dime a dozen wits and skeptics about the protection of ships. Here you have both concern for the price, and an increasing displacement, everything, but not concern for the life of sailors, the safety of military equipment. Even if the ship will be put out of action, but if it remains buoyant, this alone is worth thinking about strengthening its protection. So what do we care about, what is most important for us, what restrictions and signed agreements do not allow us to increase the survivability of ships, including through booking?
          1. aleks 62 next
            aleks 62 next 10 February 2016 12: 30
            +4
            ..... As physicists say, if the cheese head is accelerated to the desired speed, then it will break through the concrete wall. ...

            ... Here I am about the same ... Kaptsov is surprised that a relatively "soft" anti-ship missile penetrates the ship and armor, including ... hi
            1. Kars
              Kars 10 February 2016 12: 32
              +2
              Quote: aleks 62 next
              if the cheese head is accelerated to the desired speed, then it will break through the concrete wall. .

              Just how much will it be at sound speeds? 30-40?
              Quote: aleks 62 next
              Kaptsov is surprised that the relatively "soft" anti-ship missile penetrates the ship and armor, including

              And there you think they dispersed to such a speed?
              1. igordok
                igordok 10 February 2016 14: 55
                +7
                Quote: Kars
                Just how much will it be at sound speeds? 30-40?

                Water is "softer" than cheese. But a jet of water at a speed of 1200 m / s cuts steel on machines with water jet cutting.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 10 February 2016 15: 07
                  +3
                  Quote: igordok
                  Water is "softer" than cheese.

                  Are you sure? Water is not compressible, therefore it cuts. Yes and anti-ship missiles with a speed of 1200 m / s are very small nomenclature. And their dimensions are requested for air defense equipment.
                  1. sir.jonn
                    sir.jonn 10 February 2016 22: 58
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    Quote: igordok
                    Water is "softer" than cheese.

                    Are you sure? Water is not compressible, therefore it cuts

                    Water with an abrasive cuts on this.
                    1. mmaxx
                      mmaxx 14 August 2016 14: 46
                      0
                      Duc. wink And then water ... Special sand.
                      +1
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 10 February 2016 13: 58
              +6
              Quote: aleks 62 next
              ... Here I am about the same ... Kaptsov is surprised that a relatively "soft" anti-ship missile penetrates the ship and armor, including ...
              If you are talking about a head of cheese, then the problem is that such speeds are still prohibitive for it. But, a wall of paper or cardboard and the child will break through with this cheese, just throwing it. We are talking about the same topic, but from different angles. There is no military equipment that cannot be destroyed, be it a tank or a warship, the whole question is how much harder or easier it will be. Most of those who criticize Kaptsov here have steel doors at home, or even bars on the windows, and they cannot be convinced that it is better to have cardboard doors with a flimsy lock. But, any lock, any strong door will be open, the price of the question is only in the efforts, qualifications of the thief and the necessary tools. It's all about how much and whom the lock can hold, how long the door can withstand. This is the main thing, whether it is about the safety of the home or the protection of the crew in battle. Will there be enough time to complete a combat mission under fire or save the crew from a sinking ship? In the old days, there was such an indicator for battleships, as the time spent (maneuvering) under the fire of large-caliber guns, the higher this time, the better. Different battleships were compared in the ratio of armor and artillery (defense-attack). Who is now doing the calculations, how much can one or another destroyer or cruiser "take" anti-ship missiles? We are scoffing here, and the Yankees have already made conclusions after the Falklands, the Arleigh Burke destroyers came to the fleet with reinforced structure and armor made of Kevlar and armored alloys. If interested, read about them. Nuclear weapons will not be used everywhere, and even heavy anti-ship missiles, but even with them, a protected ship will always have more chances, and even one extra chance can decide the outcome of a battle, or even a war. Think about it.
          2. Mr. Pip
            Mr. Pip 10 February 2016 12: 34
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            if the cheese head is accelerated to the desired speed, then it will break through the concrete wall.

            Well, only if up to "near-light" - then it will pierce the earth through and through - the mass (and density) in this case is directly proportional to the speed hi
    3. ssergn
      ssergn 11 February 2016 15: 12
      0
      Quote: qwert
      but there will be fuel left in the rocket, etc.



      And the kinetic energy - for some reason, everyone forgot about it, the rocket flies faster than an avaibomb. And her mass is not weak (especially old missiles).
  4. pravednik
    pravednik 10 February 2016 07: 13
    0
    The article is informative. But what is the meaning of it? Unclear.
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 10 February 2016 07: 20
      +5
      Quote: pravednik
      The article is informative. But what is the meaning of it? Unclear.

      The fact that the omnipotence of anti-ship missiles is a myth and a ship protected by armor is able to withstand repeated missiles from anti-ship missiles without much loss of combat effectiveness, which Oleg Kaptsov’s theory is regularly promoting on this (and not only) resource.
      1. xtur
        xtur 10 February 2016 14: 18
        0
        > The fact that the omnipotence of the RCC is a myth

        in fact, the myth is either the literacy of those discussing, or their objectivity. In any of the memoirs of the admirals, or captains, it was said that from 10% to 20% of the RCC were from special. Warhead.

        PS. And all the anti-ship missiles had the main objective as an aircraft carrier
    2. ICT
      ICT 10 February 2016 07: 37
      +8
      In reality, even the glass blocks of the portholes, which were in close proximity to the places of entry of the missiles, survived on the target of the PKZ-35 swimming pool.

      the distortions went, the illuminator as far as I understand is strong enough it should hold the blow of the storm waves, and here it’s just that it flew by and whirled ... to the superstructure, and not to the side next to it,
      article
      http://topwar.ru/7123-razberem-zheltyachok.html
      for lazy photos






      somewhere else video request
      1. ICT
        ICT 10 February 2016 08: 13
        21
        other exercises, other missiles, same target
        1. aleks 62 next
          aleks 62 next 10 February 2016 11: 21
          +8
          ..... Standings .... good ..... Apparently Kaptsov did not see this recording .... By the way, a direct hit is not necessary .... When shooting the X-22, it was considered "excellent" with an undershoot of 200m .... Why ???? ... Let Kaptsov himself will guess !!!!! ... laughing .... By the way, there was a video and with such a hit .... Search - it will find itself if desired .... hi
          1. Dam
            Dam 10 February 2016 19: 20
            +1
            Saw for sure, they just do not fit into his picture of the world. In no case do I pronounce the word paranoia!
        2. alexander1
          alexander1 10 February 2016 15: 24
          +1
          The author in this barracks, which is on the video, and let him survive the hit, and if he survives, then he scribbles his own balcony!
        3. heccrbq8
          heccrbq8 12 February 2016 12: 45
          0
          1 missile ricochet.
      2. sir.jonn
        sir.jonn 10 February 2016 12: 49
        +3
        Quote: TIT
        illuminator as far as I understand it is strong enough it should hold the blow of storm waves

        On my vessel, when mooring in the open sea, the ships folded so that the side of the fist was cradled exactly across the hatch in my cabin, and even the glass.
        And a month ago, a wave came on board, so five lumiks swept with a bang.
        In general, it all depends on the confluence of a large number of circumstances and it is not a fact that an increase in the reservation will not play a fatal role at a crucial moment.
    3. vvp2412
      vvp2412 10 February 2016 12: 34
      +2
      you know such a thing as "shitty"? So it was she ...
    4. Dam
      Dam 10 February 2016 19: 17
      0
      I’ll go further, and cognition in what?
  5. Mera joota
    Mera joota 10 February 2016 07: 15
    +4
    In my opinion it would be easier to recall the fate of the Iranian frigate IRS Sahand (F74), which 18.04.1988/600/123. was sunk by the Americans through anti-ship missiles and aerial bombs. Three anti-ship missiles Harpoon, two 1500 kg. KAB AGM-XNUMX Skipper II, two Rockeye cluster bombs. All this on a frigate with a displacement of only XNUMX tons. who drowned only after the detonation of ammunition as a result of a fire.
    it is worth recognizing that the sinking of the "old galosh" took indecently for a long time.

    USS New Orleans (LPH-11) does not deserve such a nickname, it is not his fault that he was the victim of the end of the Cold War and cuts in the military budget, 30 years is not a long time for the ship, much less a sign of old age ...
    1. Aroma77
      Aroma77 10 February 2016 10: 06
      +2
      Why go far? You can recall two Georgian boats in 2008, and Saudi - the Yemen war, was already marked by the sinking of several destroyers of the Saudi army.
      1. aleks 62 next
        aleks 62 next 10 February 2016 11: 30
        +4
        ..... Why go far. You can recall two Georgian boats in 2008, ...

        ... And not only .... Kaptsov writes: ".... Half a century ago, the small destroyer Eilat (1700 tons, less than a modern corvette) was hit within an hour by three P-15 missiles carrying warheads weighing 500 kg. Although, it would seem, was enough one ... ".... Where did the infa come from ???? .... As far as I remember, there was a hit by ONE out of two rocket ..... And it was enough ... hi
        1. Maki Avellevich
          Maki Avellevich 10 February 2016 20: 02
          0




          http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D1%8D%D1%81%D0%B
          C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%AD%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82

        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 10 February 2016 20: 27
          +1
          Quote: aleks 62 next
          As far as I remember, it was hit by ONE rocket of two ..... And it was enough ....

          "We are not inquisitive ... We are not even interested in what lies on the surface ..." (c).
          The first missile attack. Fulfilled it 21 October 1967 two missile boats of the Egyptian Navy.
          17 hours; 19 minutes - the launch of the first rocket; after 5 seconds - the second. On the destroyer "Eilat" missiles were visually detected by a smoke plume at a distance of about 60 cab. and according to calculations they walked by. But soon they changed the trajectory and headed straight for the ship. The ship commander made an attempt to evade missiles by a sharp change in course and an increase in speed. At the same time, fire was opened from 40-mm anti-aircraft guns. 60 seconds later after the launch, the first rocket hit the engine room of the destroyer, and after a while the second rocket exploded in the boiler room.
          The destroyer lost its course and was partially de-energized, the flow of overboard water into the hull began. The emergency ship party began the struggle for survivability.
          In 17 hours 23 minutes two more anti-ship missiles P-15 were launched from the second boat. The delay in launching a missile with a second boat, according to participants in the event, Soviet naval officers (granitny.ru), occurred due to a malfunction in the missile fire control system or in the navigation system, as a result of which the boat needed to complete a full circulation on the 3600. Although in the official description there is another reason - the Egyptian boat commander hesitated and departed too late from the navigation bridge into the protected pilothouse. Both missiles hit the Israeli destroyer, which was already unable to defend. During the first missile naval battle in world history, the destroyer was destroyed on the Israeli side, 47 members of his crew (from 199) were killed, and 81 was wounded. The Egyptian side, represented by coast observation posts and two wooden missile boats, had no casualties.
          On a photo - places of hit П-15.
          http://rusdarpa.ru/?p=223
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 10 February 2016 11: 40
        +1
        Quote: Aroma77
        Why go far? You can recall two Georgian boats in 2008, and Saudi - the Yemen war, was already marked by the sinking of several destroyers of the Saudi army.

        Can you list the side numbers of the Saudi "army" destroyers sunk?
        Well, or at least something of a Saudi destroyer (class, side number, year of launch)?
  6. Wedmak
    Wedmak 10 February 2016 07: 32
    +6
    In most cases, this is not about destroying the ship, but about disabling it and ending the hostilities. Fire, damage to structures and weapons, the failure of the propulsion system, losses among the crew, and simply a violation of communication and the operation of surveillance equipment can take the ship out of battle. It's enough.
    If the goal is to destroy a large ship with good air defense and guarded by other ships, the TNW is simply involved. Conventional anti-ship missiles are used only to divert the protection and load of the air defense system for a successful breakthrough to the target of special ammunition.
  7. Chtononibrator
    Chtononibrator 10 February 2016 07: 33
    +1
    That would be to see what will happen to the ship after the RCC with a nuclear warhead.
    1. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 10 February 2016 11: 32
      +1
      .... That would be to see what will happen to the ship after the RCC with a nuclear warhead ...

      .... Watch the new series of the Air Force about the 3rd world .... There, an integral aircraft carrier after the use of nuclear weapons drowns almost the entire film ... laughing
  8. inkass_98
    inkass_98 10 February 2016 07: 42
    18
    Judging by Oleg’s articles, missile weapons are completely meaningless, and are used only to launch fireworks and cut dough. And all the years of active development of anti-ship missiles, specialized design bureaus around the world have been busy with just this.
    I would like to remind the distinguished author that hitting a blank shell in a can of the "Vereshchagino" type would inflict even less damage on it than a missile without a real warhead, as in this case. Do you remember why at the beginning of the war the ZIS-2 guns were discontinued? And why in 1943 they began to be produced again? And by the way, their legacy is still used and will be used on new technical damage.
    And about
    nothing is known about her getting into the target ship
    - This is not entirely true. And even there are examples, you will be surprised:
    1. Maegrom
      Maegrom 10 February 2016 08: 10
      +1
      And what kind of ship in the video? End-to-end longitudinal penetration is interesting.
    2. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 08: 31
      -10 qualifying.
      Quote: inkass_98
      You will be surprised:

      To be surprised you need to know the scale


      an epic scene from "Terminator" was filmed on ... a table, instead of a truck - a toy car

      In your case, they shot at a small barge with two seven-ton Granit rockets, and then rejoice at the resulting fireworks, how beautifully they smashed

      Only in a real battle, instead of the 500 ton barge, there will be the 10 000 ton destroyer
      And instead of exotic granite - "Harpoon", which is 10 times smaller in weight.
      Quote: inkass_98
      And even there are examples, you will be surprised:

      150 people survived from Eilat’s crew, after a triple explosion of 500 kg warhead
      they will be surprised, they did not know that they should be dead
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2016 08: 44
        +6
        it’s a floating ship listed in the article, not a 500 ton barge
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 01
          -10 qualifying.
          Quote: Tlauicol
          it's a floating ship,

          she is the barge

          Floating non-self-propelled base of the "Samarga" type, project # 688. Built in Finland. Dimensions: length 110 m; width 13,8 m; draft 2,8 m

          For comparison, the dimensions of a typical target of the "destroyer" type: length 163 meters, width 19 m, a draft of 5 meters (with a GAS fairing - about 8), data on a small BOD, pr. 1155


          For comparison, the modern "Zamvolt". length 183, width 25, and this is not the limit for warships. Amer Nuclear Aircraft Carrier - length 330, width of the flight deck 70 meters
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 15
            +4
            Will Zamvolt or Severomorsk withstand hits along two Mosquitoes? No one will mark the masts. So do not be surprised that the target did not drown when it was not supposed to sink.
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 22
              -4
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Will Zamvolt or Severomorsk withstand hits along two Mosquitoes?

              It will not fly nicely, instantly killing the entire crew on board

              Size matters
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 41
                0
                Of course it does.

                Who knows, maybe one Penguin will fly away.
            2. alexander1
              alexander1 10 February 2016 15: 34
              +8
              The target is the pelvis! There is no fuel, no weapons or ammunition either! In a modern warship, with all the modern struggle for fire safety, there is a huge amount of combustible and explosive materials! Once again, we watch a video of the explosion of rockets and a cloud of flame and present the artillery cellar and tanks with fuel!
          2. PPD
            PPD 10 February 2016 11: 37
            +6
            Ha! Let's go back to the 2nd world. Japanese aircraft carrier-standard story- a couple of three hits, burn, flooding and voila. The team leaves the ship, which then burns a cloud of time. To save neither strength, nor opportunity, nor time.
            250-260 meters each by the way.
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 06
        12
        The destroyer Khyber was twice the size of the Eilat. 222 sailors won't be surprised at anything
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 29
          -4
          Quote: Tlauicol
          The destroyer Khyber was twice the size of the Eilat. 222 sailors won't be surprised at anything

          This alone does not explain why Eilat was lucky.

          can sheath made of other steel?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 46
            +4
            For the same reason as floating ship. And other targets. You need to sink the target - they drown.
            Plus luck - bad luck
            Some destroyers were sunk by 50kg bombs, others survived 5 kamikaze attacks .. etc
          2. serverny
            serverny 10 February 2016 13: 51
            +3
            This alone does not explain why Eilat was lucky.

            It is explained by impudent lies and distortion. In this article, by the way, this is generally indecent a lot, and begins with the first paragraph.
          3. Name classified
            Name classified 10 February 2016 15: 50
            +3
            Was he lucky? He drowned as a result. Some kind of strange luck ...
            Lucky more crew, but it will fly where. But the task of the RCC is to neutralize the ship, missiles coped with this task. A crew without a ship can only wait in battle - salvation, captivity or death, as luck would have it
          4. your1970
            your1970 12 February 2016 11: 28
            0
            The battlecruiser Hood drowned within 3 minutes after several shells hit, and their number was obviously not large due to the distance (18km) of shooting and a fairly small number of large-caliber guns from the Germans ..
            3 minutes = 1400 people ...
            And you missiles, that’s, and here, serious armor didn’t save
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 10 February 2016 09: 18
        +3
        "Granite" destroyer in 10000 tons one shot. It will not tear into pieces, but several dozen corpses and the sinking of the ship is guaranteed.
      4. Serg65
        Serg65 10 February 2016 09: 46
        13
        Quote: BENNERT
        Only in a real battle, instead of the 500 ton barge, there will be the 10 000 ton destroyer
        And instead of exotic granite - "Harpoon", which is 10 times smaller in weight.

        Especially for American partners, the photo is the result of the work of "Volcano"
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 03
          -7
          Quote: Serg65
          the photo is the result of the work of "Volcano"

          Type, number of media?
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 10 February 2016 10: 14
            +5
            Quote: BENNERT
            Type, number of media?

            Type-ZM70
            number of speakers - ... Russians are famous for their out-of-the-box thinking. so that a launcher and a ten-row boat will be able to sprinkle, but a "dozen" hundreds of pieces in a couple of months bungle ... but like two fingers on the asphalt! bully
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 24
              -3
              So how many carriers
              Two or three?
            2. Vladimyrych
              Vladimyrych 10 February 2016 12: 01
              -3
              Serg65 no cheers yelling.
              The production of heavy anti-ship missiles (P-700, P-1000) has been lost. At the same time, there is no melting composition for placement. GKRK "Moscow" and sister thorns of 12 tons, if that. Can you imagine the time span of construction and commissioning of the Navy? Therefore, the massive transition to the P-000 "Onyx". And the modernization of the Soviet reserve.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 10 February 2016 12: 05
                0
                and how many battleships do we have in the world? nothing to talk about request
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 10 February 2016 13: 30
                +5
                Vladimiritch do not need tears.
                Quote: Vladimir
                The production of heavy anti-ship missiles (P-700, P-1000) has been lost.

                So what???? Or are you going to fight missiles developed in the 70-80xx of the last century? Why didn’t the P-800 please you?
                Quote: Vladimir
                GKRK "Moscow" and sister thorns of 12 tons, if that.

                Maksim. my soul. I, unlike you, knew well the caperang Mos.kalenko, the first commander of the Slava RRC, took an active part in the loading of the 4K80 anti-ship missiles (Basalt) that were in service with this cruiser at that time, if that!
                Quote: Vladimir
                Imagine the time period of construction and commissioning of the Navy?

                Believe it or not, I can imagine it very realistically, because I received ships both in the "Zaliv" and "60 Communards" in those days when the hulls were baked like cakes. And I see how shipbuilders are now begging for money from the state and at the exit there is nothing.
                Quote: Vladimir
                Can you imagine the time period of construction and commissioning of the Navy? Therefore, the massive transition to the P-800 "Onyx"

                And here here I somehow did not understand your thought, please be kind enough to explain!
                Yes, and the last ... where did you see me screaming cheers ???
      5. mvg
        mvg 10 February 2016 13: 12
        +2
        This is not Granite. It's Mosquito. 3M80E. "Total" 4 tons, warhead-300 kg (150 kg of explosives). This is not a barge. This is a passenger.
        Let's remember Sheffield and Exocet, with 60kg BB. How many ships fought for its survivability?
        It is not necessary to drown - the main thing is to disable. And, besides this, it will still paralyze the work of 2-3 ships that will: put out fires, save the crew, tow this trough, etc.
        And, if successfully hit, an explosion of ammunition, or aviation fuel ...
        PS: Few people will voluntarily even "climb" under the Harpoon, remember the "Berk" in the bay and a boat with 150-200 kg of explosives that jerked under the side ..
  9. corporal
    corporal 10 February 2016 07: 44
    -1
    After the first paragraph, I immediately guessed who the author was.
    Good article. good There is reason to wonder if RCCs (in their current form) are so good, how they are advertised. Can they make warheads more powerful?
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 08: 42
      -5
      Quote: Corporal
      There is reason to wonder if RCCs (as they are) are so good, how they are advertised

      Everything cases of combat damage (Eilat, Sheffield, Stark, Hanit, Atlantic Conveyor) - occurred in the conditions of a FULL absence of electronic countermeasures (EW). In the 1973 war, the Egyptians fired two dozen P-15 missiles (similar to those that sunk Eilat), but no longer achieved ANY hit.

      + shootable traps and dipoles;
      + excitement (in conditions of strong excitement of the missile seeker, it is more difficult to "capture" the target, among the crests of high waves);
      + weather conditions, smoke screens and fog (critical factors for systems with TV and laser guidance);
      + development of stealth technology; low-power rocket radars harder to keep a target

      PZK-35 target


      And the stealth frigate Admiral Gorshkov, feel the difference. Pay attention to the solid superstructure and the blockage of the sides, where are the radio waves reflected?


      In a real battle,% of precision missile hits are at the level of artillery duels of the past (a few percent). This is not a reason to hammer on missiles and move on to the shells, but there is no reason to hope for a hit from the first shot
      1. 1rl141
        1rl141 10 February 2016 11: 07
        +8
        Quote: BENNERT
        And the stealth frigate Admiral Gorshkov, feel the difference. Pay attention to the solid superstructure and the blockage of the sides, where are the radio waves reflected?


        I’ll correct a little, about the reflection of radio waves.
        EPR (effective reflective surface) does not consist of where and how the sides will be heaped. And from the number of so-called "shiny points." These are edges, edges, bulges, etc.
        That is, if you conduct an experiment, put a perfectly flat sheet of iron and direct a source of radio emission to it, it turns out that the reflections from this sheet do not come from the entire surface, but only from the edges, and the rotation of the sheet has little effect on the magnitude of the EPR.
        The EPR will decrease significantly if you turn the sheet edge to the radiation source. That is, instead of 4 faces of the sheet, we see only 1.
        So the slope of the sides is not intended to "redirect radiation to the sky", but to hide unnecessary "shiny points".
        The EPR is also affected by the wavelength of the radiation source.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 15
          0
          1. The obligatory reception of all stealth ships is a blockage of sides (instead of a classic collapse) and a solid superstructure, also with inclined surfaces.

          2. The blockage prevents the reflection of radio waves in the direction of water, which, due to interference, greatly increases the visibility of the object.

          3. You always see four faces at the side of the ship, so your example does not make sense. Otherwise, the ship would have to be smeared over the water like a flat sheet of paper.

          4. All ship radars operate in the same ranges, centimeter and decimeter
        2. opus
          opus 10 February 2016 13: 36
          +2
          Quote: 1rl141
          That is, if you conduct an experiment, put a perfectly flat sheet of iron and direct a source of radio emission onto it, it turns out that the reflections from this sheet do not come from the entire surface, but only from the edges


          you have not quite the correct idea of ​​the EPR (EPO)
          1. EPR spheres

          2. EPR of a disk of the same diameter perpendicular to the axis on the radar

          S = pi * R ^ 2 (for disk)
          In the short-wave (high-frequency) (r >> λ) region, of course (otherwise, one must take into account the linear dimensions)

          Quote: 1rl141
          And the number of so-called "shiny dots"

          This is Backscatter Chart (DOR)

          1. 1rl141
            1rl141 10 February 2016 23: 55
            +1
            The formulas are correct. This is the theory of radio wave propagation. But for us, as radars, the reflected and received signal from the target is important. That is, what at the moment "reflects" the target and hits the receiver of my radar. I will definitely see the reflected signal from those very "shiny points". The number of these very points depends on the angle, wavelength, "ribbing" of the target.
            An iron sheet of 1 square meter will have an EPR (or, more correctly, an image intensifier tube - an effective reflective surface) of not 1 square meter, but much less.
            For example, the B-52 aircraft has an EPR of 100 sq.m. But in reality its area is much larger.
            And passive interference, or in another way - angular reflectors, and therefore make ribbed to increase their EPR.
      2. mvg
        mvg 10 February 2016 13: 15
        0
        Excuse me, 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX and Georgian boats?
      3. alexander1
        alexander1 10 February 2016 16: 14
        +1
        Many people forget that almost all Soviet missiles were developed with an "eye" for the use of special warheads! Common warheads for these missiles are peacetime equipment and training grounds! Nobody, while creating Granites and Basalts, counted on their use in single launches and with conventional equipment! Wolf pack and SpetsBCH - this is the key to their success! It’s funny for me to read home-grown strategists talking about launching granites one at a time against an aircraft carrier formation! I can't talk about an unambiguous attack algorithm, but some features of the attack indicate that the leader's rocket could be undermined when approaching the target, transmitting the target coordinates and the command to switch to the inertial guidance system to the other missiles before detonating. Thus, it was possible to realize the blinding of the air defense systems of the aircraft carrier group with the help of one of the missiles - the leader, following at a greater height and at a distance from the other missiles! It is clear that an air nuclear explosion about 20 kilometers from the enemy and the main formation of granites did not damage them, but blinded all guidance and tracking systems for a certain time! Granites, on the other hand, passed through a strip of hard electromagnetic impulse with the guidance system turned off, in the inertial guidance mode! Therefore, inertial systems in the USSR were completely devoid of electronics and decided on fur. gyroscopes and fur. executive systems !. By the way, P-36 Satan similarly pass through the cloud of a nuclear explosion!
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 10 February 2016 21: 03
      +1
      Quote: Corporal
      are RCCs so good (in their current form) as they are advertised.

      And what onyx or caliber do not suit you? Universal in media. Powerful, super sound (3М54 - warhead in the final section).
      Quote: Corporal
      Can make warheads more powerful?

      The range, flight speed depends on the weight of the warhead ... The optimal ratio of RCC parameters has been calculated. And the increase in warhead power is due to new types of explosives with which they are equipped.
  10. tlauicol
    tlauicol 10 February 2016 08: 14
    +5
    What would have happened to the "Nakhimov" in battle, if a KSSh disc hit according to this alternative version?

    Explosion of boilers, loss of half power, at least, destruction of the bottom, 200-25- stokers welded alive and a fire. And then, at best, long-term repairs, at worst, death. This is without exposure to warheads.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 11
      -4
      Quote: Tlauicol
      What would have happened to the "Nakhimov" in battle, if a KSSh disc hit according to this alternative version?

      Did Nakhimov's reservation scheme somehow impede the penetration of PKR into the ship?

      The shooting of Nakhimov showed what happens to an ordinary armless pelvis
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 23
        +6
        You already decide: armless or not. And you wonder how a rocket could penetrate an armored deck and an armored belt. Yes, if there were at least 500mm armored belt on it - its boilers would explode from one inert discrequest .
        Gorshkov is also an armless pelvis and boats of Israel and Zamvolt - but they were protected (served) by EW and Stells, not armor
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 40
          -3
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Yes, if there were at least 500mm armored belt on it - its boilers would explode from one inert disc

          First break through the armor, then talk about boilers

          The case with “Nakhimov” is a typical delusion of how the anti-ship missile system breaks through the belts. She did not break through anything, she went higher. There is no point in discussing the rest. typical fire as if hitting Sheffield
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 49
            +4
            What for ? the rocket went higher, the engine flew into the boiler room - an explosion
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 58
              -8
              Quote: Tlauicol
              What for ? the rocket went higher

              Not received above

              the entire board must be protected with armor
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 10 February 2016 10: 09
                +1
                Oleg, you wrote an article where you cited Kr Nakhimov, the floating ship and the landing ship as an example. I replied: Nakhimov would even have exploded from a blank, they easily drown the floating ship, for the sinking of a large paratrooper one subsonic missile is enough, and not a dozen + heavy bombs.
                And to revive a dispute that has been going on for years - dismiss
                1. Bennert
                  Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 19
                  -5
                  Nakhimov - debunking the myth of high armor-piercing subsonic anti-ship missiles

                  Plavkazarma, Vereshchagino and Kater - a refutation of the myth, how "an anti-ship missile with an inert warhead cut a destroyer in half." It turned out to be nothing like that. There is no penetrating power and destructive energy - a hole and that's it.

                  To drown a large paratrooper, you need to take water and tip over. the whole question is in time.
                  if there is an emergency party on board that regularly straightens the roll, it will sink on an even keel 10 times longer
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 10 February 2016 10: 31
                    +3
                    at the same time, the myth is debunked that to sink a large target ship, a dozen RCCs and a dozen bombs are required
                    What about the myth of the destroyer cut in half, did you come up with this?
                    about Nakhimov - not a rebuttal, but an alternative assumption. However, this did not help him in any way.
                    But UDC still will not complete the task
                    1. Bennert
                      Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 43
                      +1
                      1. Nagato rolled over later four days, due to a leak with an area of ​​several cm, the flow of water is 70 tons per hour.

                      But it is naive to hope that he will also sink in combat conditions. On an even keel.

                      2. Curious shooting in 1961, the destroyer "Wrathful" on the destroyer "Boky" - the first target ship, which retained all the superstructure, artillery installations and torpedo tubes. At the same time, “Boyky” was not put on the barrels and constantly changed its position from the drift.
                      At the time of launch, the rocket and the target were in the same diametral plane. The rocket hit the target in the joint of the deck and side, at the base of the rack of the stern flag. The result was a ricochet, and the rocket went along the median plane of the ship above the deck, sweeping away everything in its path. At first they were stern gun turrets, then superstructures with a rangefinder station located on them, then stern torpedo tubes. Everything was swept overboard, right up to the forecastle.
                      Next, the rocket entered along the forecastle, cutting it like a can opener, and got stuck in the area of ​​the nose 130-millimeter cannon. In this case, the dockmaster fell on one side, and the bridge with the control tower and another 130-millimeter cannon - on the other. If the flight of the rocket had not been filmed on a film, no one would have believed that this could be done with the ship with one rocket, and even with an inert warhead.


                      3. The main thing is that it doesn’t fall apart like that barge, destroying all who were on board
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 10 February 2016 11: 48
                        0
                        Nagato will be larger and Ogden and Nakhimov - and the flow is minuscule

                        Well, who was torn in half here?

                        Who will go to sea battle on a barge?
                      2. Bennert
                        Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 55
                        -3
                        Do not forget to calculate the buoyancy of all three. and roll rate (force on the shoulder)

                        the upper deck of the "Boyky" EM (probably "seven") was torn in half, the destroyer was the size of an RTO

                        About that and the speech - an example with a colorful shooting of a barge is incorrect
                      3. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 10 February 2016 12: 11
                        +5
                        So do you believe that the floating ship or barge will be blown apart like a light bulb? And then I hesitated reading your article. RTOs and now any heavy missile will mutilate if it hits along the hull.
                        One rocket, Karl! Just one! Not 12, not 20 - do not forget to count
                      4. Bennert
                        Bennert 10 February 2016 12: 28
                        +2
                        Granite will smash everything. Aviation Onyx probably too. Harpoon no

                        People read differently. Destroyer - means the size of Chabanenko

                        Yes, at least half the rocket. How much time has passed before the flooding
            2. ICT
              ICT 10 February 2016 18: 14
              0
              Quote: BENNERT
              Bennert


              By the way, Oleg, why this "cartoon"?
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 10 February 2016 21: 44
          +1
          Quote: BENNERT
          the entire board must be protected with armor

          Gone from this: hard, machine power, speed. But the local reservation remains and will be for a long time, but on the basis of new materials.
          Quote: BENNERT
          To drown a large paratrooper, you need to take water and tip over.
          You will not believe! This is such a tenacious thing that it can take water to the upper deck, staying afloat ... (pr775.1)
          Quote: BENNERT
          if there is an emergency party on board,

          Do you leave her at the pier before leaving? Or ... Ahh, you can’t even imagine the basics of the ship organization of the BZZH! bully
  11. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 10 February 2016 21: 34
    +1
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Gorshkov is also an armless pelvis and boats of Israel and Zamvolt - but they were protected (served) by EW and Stells, not armor
    Well, why? Zumwold, for example, has local reservations (Kevlar, 5 times stronger than steel, also much easier, again ceramics and carbon fiber).
    Then, you forgot about the AIA of the ship. I don't know how Polyment / Redoubt (it seems to be brought to condition), but Aegis, they say, is very effective (according to advertising brochures). By the way, our "Dagger" is also wow, it's a pity the range is too small (self-defense air defense missile systems). But they promise to spoil the S-400/500 and stick it on the Leader. wink
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 10 February 2016 08: 21
    +4


    It is no secret that the height of the RCC is adjustable. If the goal must be used to the full - it will be drowned for years. If not, everyone saw what was happening with the floating ship, which they sentenced.

    Here is the USS Ogden, a ship comparable in size and size to New Orleans drowning ONE Harpoon! Norwegian NSM hit a superstructure
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 18
      -3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Here is the USS Ogden, a ship comparable in size and size to New Orleans drowning ONE Harpoon! Norwegian NSM hit a superstructure

      weird. In the title of the video, it was drowned by a South Korean submarine
      Quote: Tlauicol
      drowns ONE Harpoon!

      how could one if at 0:26 it was blown up again
      Quote: Tlauicol
      If the goal must be used to the full - it will be drowned for years

      I’ll tell you more, they don’t drown without damage below the OHL
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 26
        0
        Yuk submarine drowns Harpoon - what's so surprising? Hit at the waterline itself. NSM hit the add-in.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 43
          -3
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Yuk submarine drowns Harpoon - what's so surprising? Hit at the waterline itself. NSM hit the add-in.

          And what surprises you.

          From two explosions an unprotected board was stuck. No struggle for survivability was conducted.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 February 2016 09: 50
            +3
            this is about the sinking of hundreds of harpoons and bombs of the same targets that you give as an example.
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 00
              -2
              Quote: Tlauicol
              this is about the sinking of hundreds of harpoons and bombs of the same targets that you give as an example.

              We don’t know how much time has passed.

              ogden a large ship, it could sink the next day.
    2. RPG_
      RPG_ 10 February 2016 11: 58
      0
      The video does not tell us how much time has passed from getting to flooding.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2016 12: 13
        +1
        but did he drown? from getting 12 rockets and 10 heavy bombs? or how ?
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 12: 28
          -2
          Nagato drowned from a centimeter hole. So what?
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 10 February 2016 08: 23
    +2


    But the sentenced floating ship. a hole in the add-in will not get off
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 20
      -12 qualifying.
      1. The barracks in length and width are one and a half to two times shorter and already destroyer
      2. On the video Granite
      3. Two missiles
      4. Where is granite now - in the same place as aviation Onyx
      1. kote119
        kote119 10 February 2016 10: 34
        +1
        1. faces on what stood on and stands
        2. why did you think that it is granite?
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 51
          -1
          Shooting from the cruiser, pr. 1164, in the video
          it was he who shot at the target
          1. kote119
            kote119 10 February 2016 11: 08
            +1
            Quote: BENNERT
            Shooting from the cruiser, pr. 1164, in the video
            it was he who shot at the target

            volcanoes are on the atlantes, or basalt but not granite
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 16
              -3
              Quote: kote119
              and atlantes are volcanoes, or basalt but not granite

              They are all super heavy exotic
              1. kote119
                kote119 10 February 2016 11: 40
                +1
                for whom is exotic? we have the main RCC
                1. Bennert
                  Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 50
                  -1
                  Quote: kote119
                  for whom is exotic?

                  Absolute exotic. Number of carriers, airborne, combat experience
                  Quote: kote119
                  we have the main RCC

                  No. The main ones are the Caliber family. As well as small-sized X-55 Uranus

                  most ships are armed with them
                  1. kote119
                    kote119 10 February 2016 12: 11
                    0
                    Tell me large ships and submarines that are armed with a caliber, and how many PCRs are located on a particular carrier.
                    1. Bennert
                      Bennert 10 February 2016 12: 33
                      -1
                      frigate pr. 11356, frigate pr. 22350 (16 calibers), patrol ship Dagestan
                      submarines - a series of Ash trees - 32 caliber each, diesel-electric submarine pr. 636

                      Caspian RTOs each carry 8 calibers

                      80 calibers will be carried by the modernized TARKR "Nakhimov"

                      Below is a list of X-35 uranium carriers:
                      Ship modification X-35 is part of the armament of the following ships:

                      PU "Uranus" on the ship "Yaroslav the Wise."
                      Missile boat projects:
                      1241 Lightning [1]
                      10411 The Firefly [9]
                      20970 Katran [8]
                      Corvette projects:
                      Patrol and patrol ship HQ-381 of the PS-500 project [10] (?) (Vietnam)
                      20380 "The Guardian"
                      MRK 1234EM "Ovod-EM" (Algeria)
                      25 “The Chickens” [11] (India)
                      25A “Bark” [12] (India)
                      Frigates (patrol ships) projects:
                      11540 Hawk
                      11541 The Corsair [1]
                      11661 Cheetah
                      22460 Rubin
                      16 Godvari [11] (India)
                      16A Brahmaputra [13] (India)
                      Large anti-submarine ship projects:
                      61 "Komsomolets of Ukraine" (modernized according to the project 01090)

                      + aviation variants X-35
                      + coastal defense complex "Ball"
                      1. kote119
                        kote119 10 February 2016 13: 06
                        0
                        1. talk about calibers on our large ships and their quantity on a specific medium, and not about uranium on a mosquito fleet, and especially on foreign ships.
                        2. missiles belonging to the family of caliber are missiles of different purposes (in the context of this article, it is PKR that are considered).
                        3. at the moment there are no calibers, not just one ship of the 1st rank (except for the 1st Severodvinsk submarine), but what and where to put it in the future is for romantics
                        4. All domestic cruisers (which are on the move) as well as the APCRK pr. 949a are equipped, as you put it, "with exotic missiles + MRK.
                        5. on cruiser 949 alone, etc. ammunition is equal to the number of missiles on the ships of the entire Caspian flotilla
                        conclusion - at the moment, heavy PCRs are not exotic in our fleet
                      2. kote119
                        kote119 10 February 2016 21: 04
                        0
                        who minus the answer what is wrong
                2. DM51
                  DM51 10 February 2016 13: 25
                  +3
                  Oleg, I think you understand that as soon as armored ships begin to be designed, heavy anti-ship missiles will immediately appear as a means of dealing with them, and again the armor will remain out of the question. Moreover, our country has an advantage - we have vast experience in building such missiles. Two anti-ship missiles are guaranteed to be enough to disable any armored super destroyer, but in fact, even if you start to design "dreadnoughts" now, all the same, missiles with hypersound will appear earlier and then the price of an armored belt
                3. The comment was deleted.
                4. DrVintorez
                  DrVintorez 13 February 2016 15: 21
                  0
                  Quote: BENNERT
                  Absolute exotic

                  absolute exoticism is one, maximum two copies. and we have the "glory" project, "antey", "eagle", "sarych". all these ships are armed with heavy anti-ship missiles and it turns out somehow strange: not exotic at all
        2. alexej123
          alexej123 10 February 2016 11: 13
          +2
          If I'm not mistaken, at 1164 "Varyag" (the Pacific Fleet's exercises, in my opinion, on the video) are not "Granit", but "Volcano".
    2. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 13 February 2016 15: 17
      0
      do not know the materiel - be quiet. granite has a "wet" start!
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 10 February 2016 08: 34
    +5
    The corporate article by Oleg Kaptsov, as always, leaves no one indifferent.
  • Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 10 February 2016 08: 54
    27
    Article minus. The author twitches again, no one denies the power of a large-caliber projectile, but? There is such a science of ballistics, the concept of hit probability, don’t be lazy to read. We still don’t take into account the wear of weapons. Large-caliber guns can be installed only on capital ships, and rockets on almost any floating unit, this determines the massaging of the strike. We won’t talk about the range of artillery, the rocket is at times superior in range and accuracy.
    A fire on board, there is nothing worse for a sailor (I say as the commander of an emergency party), he himself burned twice. This same fire provides a rocket at a time.
    Inert warheads were fired at targets and it wasn’t accepted to sink targets, imagine that a landing ship stuffed with soldiers and equipment gets a rocket and flashes it according to the shots provided, even without an explosion? Meat, fire, and so on.
    My, I repeat, my personal opinion is that the author simply trolls the venerable public.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 56
      -11 qualifying.
      RCC hit probability is not greater than that of a projectile

      The missile is vulnerable to the effects of electronic warfare, all kinds of traps, weather, has limitations on the use in conditions of excitement, difficulty in capturing targets with low EPR and stealth technology.

      How many Egyptian anti-ship missiles hit the target in the 1973 war? The answer is zero.

      Shooting dipole reflectors from the side of the submarine "Admiral Panteleev"

      Quote: Fotoceva62
      the landing ship stuffed with fighters and equipment hits the rocket and flashes it according to the frames provided even without an explosion? Meat, fire, and so on.

      If the superstructure is not made of magnesium, and combustible synthetics are not used in the decoration, they will cope with the fire.

      How did they manage on the destroyer Glamorgan and the motor ship Vereshchagino, which was hit by a 4-ton missile. As for "meat" - losses are inevitable, the whole question is in the magnitude of these losses.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 10 February 2016 10: 02
        +2
        And not a word about the armor. EW Air Defense Stells.

        How many boats in the 1973 war were protected by armor? Answer is zero
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 10
          -2
          Quote: Tlauicol
          And not a word about the armor.

          Early
          Quote: Tlauicol
          How many boats in the 1973 war were protected by armor? Answer is zero

          better about aviation in a six-day war tell
          Quote: Tlauicol
          EW Air Defense Stells.

          and armor

          costs a penny, and the chances are increased seriously
      2. kote119
        kote119 10 February 2016 10: 45
        +2
        1. do not give examples of the use of cruise missiles developed in the 50s
        2. restriction on use has any weapon
        3. the enemy will always try to reduce the likelihood of being hit, and new RCCs are created
      3. Fotoceva62
        Fotoceva62 10 February 2016 10: 46
        +6
        I would like to remind you that I wrote ... without an explosion ... Losses ... God forbid you not to fall into these losses, and I remind you that the combat mission was disrupted, the ship is disabled at best (short circuit, destroyed devices and mechanisms). Consider the problem in a complex, and not a “spherical horse in a vacuum) as the author.
  • fomin
    fomin 10 February 2016 09: 00
    +3
    Last year, a news report was shown from the Pacific Fleet’s top-gun firing exercises shooting a drone that hovered over a target ship. The rocket entered from the stern, passed along the length of the entire ship, left the bow, flew about 50 m and fell into the water. The ship probably stayed afloat because the holes were above water, however if it can be used then only as scrap metal.
  • Stas57
    Stas57 10 February 2016 09: 01
    +9
    and this is called representative sampling?
    scored suitable material, and where

    about "Monsoon" 1987,
    about Exocet flew into the HMS "Sheffield"
    about SS Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Glamorgan in the Falklands?
    Where about the Stark in the Persian Gulf?
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 36
      -6
      Exoset in HMS Sheffield - the destroyer stayed afloat for a week, in the conditions of an ongoing storm, in the absence of crew on board

      HMS Glamorgan - four hours later, fighting efficiency is returned

      Monsoon - 670-ton boat, burned for long hours

      Stark - withstood the hit of two rockets, at least he didn’t drown. returned to duty

      Atlantic Conveyor is a civilian cargo ship stuffed with flammable junk. Burned out, flooded in a couple of days
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 10 February 2016 10: 11
        13
        what?
        Exoset in HMS Sheffield - the destroyer stayed afloat for a week, in the conditions of an ongoing storm, in the absence of crew on board

        while he remained a combat-ready ship with a complete crew, capable of performing a combat mission?
        Quote: BENNERT
        HMS Glamorgan - four hours later, fighting efficiency is returned
        4 hours later, the fire was extinguished, the fighting efficiency was returned to later, while he remained a combat-ready ship with a complete crew, capable of performing a combat mission?
        Quote: BENNERT
        Atlantic Conveyor is a civilian cargo ship stuffed with flammable junk. Burned out, flooded in a couple of days

        and what, he completed the task, brought the goods to the destination?

        Quote: BENNERT
        Monsoon - 670-ton boat, burned for long hours

        he remained a combat-capable ship with a complete crew, capable of performing a combat mission? did not drown and did not lose half the crew?

        in these cases we are talking about the termination of the combat mission by this ship, and only the enemy’s weakness didn’t put an end to it;

        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 29
          -11 qualifying.
          Quote: Stas57
          what?

          RCC could not instantly destroy the ships, destroying all the premises, mechanisms and killing the entire crew in a second

          And if the creators of "Sheffield", "Glamorgan", "Stark" and others were concerned about their security, the ships could survive the attack without any consequences.
          1. Stas57
            Stas57 10 February 2016 10: 41
            10
            RCC could not instantly destroy the ships, destroying all the premises, mechanisms and killing the entire crew in a second

            you fight a self-made myth
            even with several

            then you have instant destruction, then you are cut in half. This is a fashionable trend now-he came up with-he himself denied.

            again, ships that received a weak rocket by 1-2 are not capable of further performing the assigned combat mission, I have up to half the crew loss and are occupied by the BJS, and not by what they were ordered
            and when they get home, or they finish them off, or they take them off or sink, these admirals will be listed as lost by any admiral, regardless of whether it was torn in half or burned in half.
            It is obvious.
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 10 February 2016 10: 58
              -4
              Quote: Stas57
              ships that received 1-2 weak missiles are not capable of further performing the assigned combat mission, I have up to half the crew loss and are occupied by the BZS

              Naturally, if there is no constructive defense on the ship
              Quote: Stas57
              and if they get home, or they’ll finish them off, or they’ll remove or sink, these admirals will be listed as lost at any admiral

              How do you like this fact - the unexpended ammunition of an Amer destroyer costs half a billion dollars
              + 200-300 crew members, many of whom are highly qualified specialists
              + GE, mechanisms, generators, BIC servers and other high-tech

              So there is a big difference - a damaged ship will return to base or be sunk.
              1. Stas57
                Stas57 10 February 2016 11: 15
                +5
                Quote: BENNERT
                So there is a big difference - a damaged ship will return to base or be sunk.

                yeah, if the fate of the battle, or caravan, depends on the fate of a couple of unsinkable destroyers, is that you, dear accountant, how do you count?
                then I wouldn’t have to pick them up after repair)))
                I say the self-invented myth
                1. Bennert
                  Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 23
                  -3
                  Quote: Stas57
                  yeah, if the fate of the battle, or caravan, depends on the fate of a couple of unsinkable destroyers, is that you, dear accountant, how do you count?

                  About drowning early. First, let them even have time to defuse their ammunition

                  a modern ship has a chance to completely fail and burn out from a single Exocet.
                  Quote: Stas57
                  dear accountant

                  Expensive ammunition
                  half a billion is a gigantic amount, even nationwide. And you need to take some measures to protect this floating treasury.
                  1. Stas57
                    Stas57 10 February 2016 12: 04
                    +2
                    About drowning early. First, let them even have time to defuse their ammunition

                    Well, which of the examples above was able to do this?
                    Quote: BENNERT
                    half a billion is a gigantic amount, even nationwide. And you need to take some measures to protect this floating treasury.

                    but actually the convoy identity is not 2 penny.
                    By the way, how is it with the expensive HMS Sheffield BC?
                    and with BC Monsoon?

                    Obviously, these are examples of successful hits that I cited to you as a sickle.
                    1. Bennert
                      Bennert 10 February 2016 12: 18
                      -2
                      Quote: Stas57
                      Well, which of the examples above was able to do this?

                      None of the modern warships
                      Quote: Stas57
                      but actually the convoy identity is not 2 penny.

                      Forget about the convoy. If his escort does not burn from unexploded exosets, they will get to the goal
                      Quote: Stas57
                      By the way, how is it with the expensive HMS Sheffield BC?

                      Shame on its creators, what else.
                      Quote: Stas57
                      and with BC Monsoon?

                      You can’t put serious protection on RTOs and other trifles, due to their size
                      Quote: Stas57
                      given by me above to you as a sickle.

                      Do not flatter yourself, you are not the first skeptic here
                      1. Stas57
                        Stas57 10 February 2016 13: 13
                        +1
                        Mnda hard you have to bustle.
                        Well, since there is no answer about HMS Sheffield BC and about the rest, then this is a drain, direct and merciless ...
              2. Mr. Pip
                Mr. Pip 10 February 2016 14: 42
                +1
                Quote: BENNERT
                So there is a big difference - a damaged ship will return to base or be sunk.

                If this is not a local conflict, then there is no difference!
                In "local" conflicts, the enemy does not have the strength to fight the ocean-going fleet - they themselves do not need it, as well as the means of struggle.
                With full-scale hostilities, too, most likely there will be nowhere to return - those who have an oceanic strong fleet also have nuclear weapons.
                And the main thing here, absolutely everything was correctly told you 1001 times (but you never hear) that the BATTLE TASK IS NOT FULFILLED! And nowhere to return.
          2. Fotoceva62
            Fotoceva62 10 February 2016 10: 58
            +5
            Sorry, but sometimes it's worth thinking about what you write. You are now showing your complete incompetence in matters of struggle for survivability and design of ships.
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 04
              -4
              What is this picture for?
  • engineer
    engineer 10 February 2016 09: 07
    +7
    nonsense. artillery. even the most powerful can’t throw a shell at 300 kilometers. and the torpedo will not reach either. in the second world battle between battleships and aircraft carriers, aircraft carriers unconditionally won due to the range of destruction - the aircraft. so a purely artillery ship would not even fit a missile. and accuracy is a matter of time. modern missiles surpass artillery accuracy at long ranges.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 10 February 2016 09: 21
    -2
    Article plus - the author writes well and interestingly. But what to do with the English Sheffield and the Exoset rocket with 50kg of explosives?
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 09: 44
      -3
      Quote: DesToeR
      But what to do with the English Sheffield and the Exoset rocket with 50kg of explosives?

      Do not build Sheffield, do not repeat mistakes
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 10 February 2016 09: 41
    19
    The ship will sink.

    If a supersonic disc is flashed across the target ship, then there will simply be a hole. If a supersonic sub-caliber is flashed around the tank, there will also be a hole, the problem for the tank is that immediately after the armor the crew and a lot of things that can burn and explode, and during WWII the chance of a fire when penetrating the armor was 20-25%.

    It is really extremely difficult to sink an aircraft carrier, which was actually observed, the problem is that the aircraft carrier, although it didn’t sink, because of the huge buoyancy reserve, it burned to hell and was left by the crew.

    The target has no fuel, no ammunition, no people. And what will happen to a real ship if a monstrous piece of iron flies into it, inside of which an additional fifty kilograms of explosives ... Isn't Kaptsov crying here all the time that a tiny "exo-net" and 37 blind-eyes flew to "Stark", and the ship is in serious repair? And how the poor Britons were pumping at the Falklands when the boat made a boolean because of an unexploded missile. Rather, rather, it is necessary to build battleships. Well, the "exoset" is not dangerous to the battleship, but a missile or a torpedo with a special warhead, in the light of countless stories about submarines that remained undetected right in the midst of enemies, looks like a sentence for everything.

    But now, for some reason, Kaptsov forgot about real cases of warship defeat and switched to empty targets fired with inert rockets.

    With regard to electronic warfare, its meaning, as it were, is to reduce the likelihood of defeat. Here are just how many cruiser-destroyers can be built and how many anti-ship missiles, especially since anti-ship missiles, unlike 12-16 '' guns, can be placed on a huge number of very compact carriers. Even really monstrous creatures of the Soviet gloomy genius can be placed on a corvette of fifteen hundred tons.
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat 10 February 2016 09: 53
      +9
      I absolutely agree with you. "Inert" target ship and "inert" training missile are not indicators. In real conditions, a missile hitting a ship, if not completely, then partially will disable it and will lead to the termination of the combat mission by this ship, which is the goal in any naval battle. In addition, in order to save the "wounded animal", you need to distract other ships from the initial combat mission.
      1. sa-ag
        sa-ag 10 February 2016 10: 11
        +1
        Quote: Monster_Fat
        partially disable it and lead to the cessation of the combat mission of this ship

        Then the victory would be too easy, such as the cruiser Huud, but this is usually an exception to the rule
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 10 February 2016 12: 56
          +2
          Currently, no one has any non-aircraft carrying ships larger than the 25-ton Peter the Great, and even earlier battleships with battle cruisers remained very piecemeal products, and the bulk of any fleet fell on all sorts of destroyers for which even one 6 '' round is quite able to inflict very severe damage.

          With "Hood" the uniqueness of the case is that one shot was shot on such a large trough.
          1. Name classified
            Name classified 10 February 2016 16: 46
            0
            "Hood" critic hit the hit, just unlucky. The first volley hit the BC. If that shell deflected a tenth of a degree in any direction - and how the battle would have developed - is unknown.
            But the Germans promoted this victory, but of course! And for the British, sinking the Bismarck was a matter of principle.
    2. max702
      max702 10 February 2016 15: 47
      +1
      Quote: EvilLion
      If a supersonic disc is flashed across the target ship, then there will simply be a hole. If you supersonic sub-caliber around the tank, there will also be a hole

      And I would also consider the percentage of the size of the "hole" to the size of the ship .. It seems to me that if you compare the dimensions, then not a 120 mm blank should fly into the tank, but a 5.45 or even 4.5 mm caliber bullet .. The same applies to the mass projectile as a percentage of the tank and the ship .. Accordingly, to be surprised that the inert anti-ship missile did not really do anything to the ship (in case of an unsuccessful hit) is not necessary, pierce through the tank with a 5.45 caliber bullet and that it will suffer a lot? Well, if you're lucky, it may even explode, but in most cases he will not notice it. A ship is a much more fragile thing compared to a machine tool, because where it is operated, the physics is different, that's enough for it to disable, figuratively speaking, bullets of 5.45 caliber .. They will be able to increase the armor of ships equivalent to the armor of tanks, then missiles equivalent to 120mm of a tank shell will appear .. And on today the power of the RCC is enough!
      pc: By the way, in ground-based equipment, the competition is armor-shell, armor loses practically with a dry score, and all efforts just go along the path of the ships, namely KAZ (long-range air defense) DZ (short-range air defense) and electronic warfare (Shtora, and others) and special the designers have no hopes for the quality and thickness of the armor, because by weight restrictions and physical properties the material is at an impasse ..
  • Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 10 February 2016 09: 53
    +9
    Great article, only the end is a little crumpled. Should have ended something like this - "Thus, we can say with confidence that in 2008, during the so-called "Russian-Georgian battle in the Black Sea", Georgian warships sank not as a result of a missile strike by the Russian Navy, but due to dilapidation".
    1. Rebus
      Rebus 10 February 2016 10: 36
      +1
      There were not quite ships there, and not exactly RCC. wink
      As far as I remember, the Mirage MRK and the Suzdalets MPK fired 9M33 Osa-M anti-aircraft missiles at missile boats with a displacement of about 300 tons each.
      1. serverny
        serverny 10 February 2016 14: 02
        +2
        Recheck your memory, it brings you down.

        The first one caught two anti-ship missiles and instantly annihilated. On the second, they released one "Wasp" and let the fire victim go home to pick up and greet him. He left the battle IMMEDIATELY after being hit by a very light anti-aircraft missile - and did not finish off.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 10 February 2016 10: 03
    +5
    Getting into an empty ship without weapons is one thing, and getting into a ship with a bunch of missiles and shells on board, fuel, etc. is another thing.

    In these targets, even nothing really burns
  • Junior Cook
    Junior Cook 10 February 2016 10: 32
    +5
    The state of security and armament of a modern ship can be formulated as follows - an egg shell armed with hammers. In the minds of people who are not knowledgeable, a ship appears to be destroyed if it shatters into chips and sank. In reality, everything is completely wrong, it is enough to damage the power plant or the electrical wiring and the ship will become inactive and unable to use the radar and use weapons.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 10 February 2016 15: 06
      +2
      Not exactly, what is CONSTRUCTIVE PROTECTION heard? In the USSR, they were seriously engaged in this. There was a theme "Bastion".
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 10 February 2016 23: 52
      +1
      Quote: Junior Chef
      it is enough to damage the power plant or the electrical wiring and the ship will become inactive and incapable of using the radar and use weapons.
      A misconception about combat stability to la and its combat capabilities.
      GEM - as a rule, 2's multiple duplication: on-board and in-line (At NK) There is a separate conversation about boats.
      For "duplication" of electrical wiring, there are the so-called "conglomerates". There is a duplication of lines (cable-routes) on-board ... AU control, for example, 3-fold, 4-fold: from the ARLS, sighting column, local (BP). Well and so on. The ship is created for combat, not for sea trips. Therefore, all the main structural elements are calculated for combat damage, the survivability of weapons and vehicles is determined. Therefore, you correctly noted:
      Quote: Junior Chef
      In the minds of people ignorant, the ship seems to be destroyed ... In reality, everything is completely wrong ...
  • Forest
    Forest 10 February 2016 10: 33
    +7
    The author forgot that during the exercises the missiles have warheads without explosives, for purposes there is no crew, fuel, ammunition, internal arrangement.
  • qwert
    qwert 10 February 2016 10: 35
    +6
    Quote: BENNERT
    In your case, they shot at a small barge with two seven-ton Granit rockets, and then they rejoice at the resulting firework, how beautifully they smashed it

    Only in a real battle, instead of the 500 ton barge, there will be the 10 000 ton destroyer
    And instead of exotic granite - "Harpoon", which is 10 times smaller in weight.


    Judging by the video - "barge" with a displacement of 4000-6000 tons.))) So it's a normal target. Of course, two granites are too much. But in a real battle, several missiles will be aimed at the target, and how many will reach it you can easily imagine what will happen to the destroyer if Granite flies into it. Half of the destroyer will simply cease to exist. The remaining crew will receive a severe concussion, which will prevent them from building up a normal fight for survivability. In general, of course, the explosion is awesome. If it flies into Zumvolt, the electronics will fly out to hell. Even if the huge Zumwalt remains afloat
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 03
      -1
      Quote: qwert
      Judging by the video - "barge" with a displacement of 4000-6000 tons.)))

      It’s half the length and is already a destroyer
      OK. 2500 tons
      Quote: qwert
      what will happen to the destroyer if Granite flies into it

      against the Granite / Volcano will survive only the battleship of the late period

      too heavy exotic rocket, which scares the average man. Only in real combat, the rockets are different. And you can protect yourself from them
  • qwert
    qwert 10 February 2016 10: 36
    +3
    But in general, I respect Oleg. And I always read his articles. But I agreed with him was only three times)
  • Outsmarted
    Outsmarted 10 February 2016 11: 00
    +3
    Quote: BENNERT
    Quote: Stas57
    what?

    RCC could not instantly destroy the ships, destroying all the premises, mechanisms and killing the entire crew in a second

    And if the creators of "Sheffield", "Glamorgan", "Stark" and others were concerned about their security, the ships could survive the attack without any consequences.

    But should a rocket annihilate a ship?
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 08
      -7
      Quote: Outsmarted
      But should a rocket annihilate a ship?

      The townsfolk look at the video with Vulcan - and think that all the rockets are

      In reality, these are 600-kg Harpoons, Exosets, NSM, Chinese Yinji, etc. small-sized rubbish, usually air-based. Designed for massive use in a salvo. Very dangerous for unprotected ships.

      But in fact they have neither penetrative ability nor great destructive power. The whole success of Garpunov was the lack of serious constructive protection on ships.
      1. DM51
        DM51 10 February 2016 18: 45
        +1
        Damn, Oleg, well, as a child, you don't understand or don't want to understand elementary things - armor will appear on ships - heavy anti-ship missiles will appear, and much earlier than the "armored fleet" and much more dangerous than the current ones, which were developed in the 70s of the last century and again heavy armor will be in the well ... Is it really so difficult for you to understand or dreams of battleships make you give a damn about reality and live in some kind of fictional world?
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 10 February 2016 23: 05
          0
          Quote: DM51
          Is it really so difficult for you to understand, or does the dream of battleships make you give a damn about reality and live in some fantasy world?

          Yes, here he is already like that, and that way he will chew .... But this is probably the diagnosis - come up with a problem and do everything so that it remains a problem. wink
    2. Stas57
      Stas57 10 February 2016 11: 43
      +2
      Quote: Outsmarted
      But should a rocket annihilate a ship?

      they write about any rocket
      for destruction or incapacitation or even "defeat"
      and taking into account the fact that the fleet is a complex of systems and weapons, this floating brazier will be finished off by simpler means. I can’t imagine that one of the navy believes in turning a ship from one non-nuclear missile into dust
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 February 2016 11: 14
    +5
    "The paradox has a simple explanation: no observer
    in their right mind would not risk being near a target. "////

    What century is the author in? In the 19th? smile
    The observer should not be near the target.
    There is telemetry. To start, the video is installed on the missile itself.
    And on the target, of course. And on buoys around the target. And from a helicopter you can perfectly
    take a picture ...
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 25
      -5
      Quote: voyaka uh
      There is telemetry. To start, the video is installed on the missile itself.
      And on the target, of course. And on buoys around the target. And from a helicopter you can perfectly
      take a picture ...

      Telemetry for "official use"
      It is, as a rule, inaccessible to ordinary inhabitants.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 10 February 2016 11: 52
        +4
        Quote: BENNERT
        Telemetry for "official use"
        It is, as a rule, inaccessible to ordinary inhabitants.

        Ordinary people have access to YouTube ...
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 10 February 2016 11: 59
          +1
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Ordinary people have access to YouTube ...

          Are there any results of firing on stalingrad?
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 10 February 2016 12: 17
            0
            Quote: BENNERT
            Are there any results of firing on stalingrad?

            Nooo .... don't beat uncle ...
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 10 February 2016 12: 20
            +3
            and do you have ? somewhere in your bosom you have a video where RCC is broken into a cake on a ship?
            1. Kars
              Kars 10 February 2016 12: 34
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Where is the RCC broken into a cake on a ship?

              So it would be armor and not 8 mm skin.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 10 February 2016 23: 26
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              and do you have ? somewhere in your bosom you have a video where RCC is broken into a cake on a ship?

              In one of his articles, Comrade Kaptsov cited (AS PROOF OF THE EXCELLENCE OF ARMOR OVER MEANS OF HITTING !!!) a photograph of the Suffolk TKR side where the kamikaze got. The plane only scratched the paint, hitting (or aiming at) a thin (in size) 114-mm armor belt covering the ship's MO and KO.
              Firstly, it must be what ... mmmm ... a narrow-minded person in order to manage to get into a protected place, and not in the wheelhouse, from which the damage would be many times more. Or in the UNPROTECTED part, then maybe the board managed to penetrate and again bring at least some damage.
              Secondly, to compare a rocket flying at supersonic speed and having a small cross-section for its weight and size (hence, having a greater penetrating power and a piston aircraft of the WWII, where an engine is considered more or less massive, which at subsonic speed is "valuable" board (in PMV "Agammemnon" got a couple of cannonballs from Turkish batteries laughing ), and even with empty tanks (judging by the amount of charred paint ...
              This Kaptsov cited as evidence of the superiority of defense over weapons. Naturally replacing the concepts in a specific text. Of course, an ignorant person, drawing an analogy between anti-ship missiles and a plywood (duralumin) WWII fighter with a stupid pilot, will do so. Or maybe this is calculated.
              This is where all the squabbles between the "fan" of their craft and the rest of the readers follow. Those who buy, keep the fight in a heap of numbers and different arguments, and those who have brains will simply express their opinion and give up.
              After all, anyway, soon there will be another article on the same topic, but with a different approach and again a vicious circle ... request
        2. Kars
          Kars 10 February 2016 13: 06
          +1
          fiberglass add-on?
        3. spravochnik
          spravochnik 10 February 2016 15: 15
          -1
          By the way, note that the harpoon was not the heaviest, subsonic, flimsy "Harpoon" - it pierced through (and did not collapse) and jumped on the surface for a long time.
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 10 February 2016 15: 20
            +2
            Quote: spravochnik
            By the way, note that the harpoon was not the heaviest, subsonic, flimsy "Harpoon" - it pierced through (and did not collapse) and jumped on the surface for a long time.

            This is not a Harpoon, This is an Ax ... Native American ...
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 10 February 2016 15: 31
              +2
              Sorry, described.
        4. Alex_T
          Alex_T 10 February 2016 16: 45
          0
          at 2:51. For the "green" they specially left the signature "They survived", the bird survived :)
          1. aba
            aba 12 February 2016 03: 53
            0
            And I did not immediately understand who was crawling on the containers! laughing
    2. mvg
      mvg 10 February 2016 17: 53
      0
      A helicopter is also dangerous! Such a contrasting target as a helicopter against the background of the sky, a rocket can "get excited" .. Then 7-ton granite / volcano / basalt will truly show what they are capable of
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 10 February 2016 11: 56
    -4
    The article, as always, is quite interesting. And the answer to the question about the effectiveness of missiles can be solved only by a major conflict or field tests.
  • Operator
    Operator 10 February 2016 13: 07
    +5
    The author of the article deliberately avoids answering a simple question that he was asked repeatedly - what is a victory in naval combat? According to the author, only the sinking of the ship by breaking through its underwater part.

    In fact, depriving a ship of combat capability by breaking through deck superstructures and / or incapacitating a power plant, missile defense complex, missile silos, or main radars absolutely enough to win a naval battle.

    The author’s counterargument that the damaged ship will be able to return to the base in order to restore combat efficiency there is cunning, because as a result of the lost naval battle the convoy will be defeated, the landing operation will be thwarted, the AUG attack will be repelled, and eventually material damage will be caused, which will require the diversion of resources for restoration the combat effectiveness of the ship instead of releasing additional weapons and ammunition.

    At the same time, the armor proposed by the author cannot be the protection of superstructures from RCC, because:
    - when it is brought to the thickness of the hull armor, the ship will lose stability;
    - even in the case of booking add-ons, the main radars remain completely defenseless against elementary fragments, and the failure of the radars makes it impossible to use rocket weapons of the ship.

    Therefore, the only way to protect the ship from missile attacks is an active defense system with anti-ballistic missiles, which solves the problem of preventing any contact of the ship with anti-ship missiles.

    Electronic warfare, of course, is effective, but it does not guarantee 100 percent deviation of anti-ship missiles from the target for a simple reason: the most powerful shipborne radio sources (main radars) operate in the decimeter range, and the missile seeker in the centimeter range. An attempt to replace the main radars of ships with centimeter ones will lead to the fact that the seeker missiles will be replaced by millimeter ones (similar to air-to-air missiles). And the millimeter range is unacceptable for ships whose radars must have a range of more than 10-15 km.

    And if you remember that expensive ships must also be designed for confrontation in a nuclear conflict (100-kt warhead is violet, what thickness of metal will it evaporate when detonated directly on the deck), then the only correct solution in the matter of protecting ships will not be the Old Testament armor, and following popular wisdom: "There is no reception against the scrap (anti-missile), except for the other scrap (anti-missile)."
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2016 23: 31
      0
      Quote: Operator
      The author of the article deliberately avoids answering a simple question that he was asked repeatedly - what is a victory in naval combat? According to the author, only the sinking of the ship by breaking through its underwater part.

      You immediately answered your question. All other arguments (as in previous articles) boil down to the fact that all ships must be booked for non-flooding in battle. The author simply has unhealthy nostalgia for the good old artillery duels of battleships and WWII cruisers wink smile
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 February 2016 02: 14
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      what is victory in naval combat?

      In the general case, the achievement of a goal.
      Quote: Operator
      depriving a ship of combat capability by breaking through deck superstructures and / or incapacitating a power plant, missile defense complex, missile silos or main radars is absolutely enough to win a naval battle.
      Nah! There are degrees of defeat: Destruction, deprivation of combat capability, failure, refusal to complete the task ... And victory in battle - defeat, disruption of the task, crowding out an operationally important area, etc.
      Quote: Operator
      the damaged ship will be able to return to the base in order to restore combat efficiency there,
      The Germans did so in the Battle of Jutland (WWI). They piled on Britons by the number of sunk ships and losses l / s. But the battle is considered lost, because the water area remained behind the shaving. The task of the Germans going to the Atlantic was disrupted. So what is considered a criterion? - Achievement of the task assigned to the forces.
      Quote: Operator
      when it is brought to the thickness of the hull armor, the ship will lose stability;
      Is not a fact! Yes, the metacentric height will decrease, but not enough for the "overkill" to play. Shrink the add-in.
      Quote: Operator
      the failure of the radar makes it impossible to use the rocket weapons of the ship.
      This is already in the past. Now it is possible to guide the RO according to the data and means of the RES of another ship, s / that AWACS ...
      As for Aegis, I will not say - I do not know.
      Quote: Operator
      the only way to protect the ship from missile attacks is an active anti-missile defense system that solves the problem of preventing any ship contact with anti-ship missiles.

      But it’s better to destroy the RCC carrier! Then the air defense will not need to strain ...
      Quote: Operator
      EW, of course, is effective, but does not guarantee 100 percent deviation of the RCC from the target
      But EMR guarantees 100% burned the brain of RCC. In this direction and work.
      Quote: Operator
      the only right decision in the matter of protecting ships will be not the Old Testament armor, but the following of popular wisdom:
      "Not caught, not a thief!" If you are not detected, then you will not be attacked! For this: camouflage, selection of the route of passage, distracting the enemy to the wrong direction, etc.
      Yours faithfully, hi
      1. Operator
        Operator 11 February 2016 04: 02
        -1
        Currently, the dimensions of the add-in are determined by the dimensions of the AFAR, and the dimensions of the latter are determined by the number of transceiver modules (the larger, the better the angular resolution of the antenna). So to reduce the dimensions of the add-in does not work.

        Even metal foil protects the equipment from EMR, with the exception of antennas, of course, and they reboot within a few seconds. Therefore, all developed EMR explosion generators are dusted in warehouses in single instances.
        To protect antennas and optical sensors, there are also high-speed filters that respond to a sharp increase in radiation power.
        The only way the EMR is useful is through a nuclear explosion followed by a breakdown in radio communications and radar for several minutes. But a nuclear explosion in itself is more effective than its EMP.
  • Wolka
    Wolka 10 February 2016 13: 20
    0
    interesting, but reminiscent of a long-standing military dispute which rifle caliber is better, the traditional 7,62mm or 5,45mm Soviet (5,56mm from NATO) ...
  • serverny
    serverny 10 February 2016 13: 39
    +3
    It will take long hours before the sailors reach the “victim” set up on the high seas (a hundred kilometers from the launch site) and make some measurements.

    Why stoop to such a petty lie, which is denied by dozens of videos about the conditions under which the tests are conducted?
  • Old_Python
    Old_Python 10 February 2016 14: 15
    0
    Where, where did SWEET_SIXTEEN disappear?!?!
    He was so weak-witted !!!
    Virniiiti! crying
    laughing
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2016 23: 32
      0
      In the course of BENNERT and is missing ... what wink
  • common man
    common man 10 February 2016 14: 19
    -3
    I do not understand the users who write "Granite has broken through, Granite has been destroyed", at least "The volcano has set fire". In principle, we are talking about the security of ships. Implied. that OUR ships. The question is, why are you shooting at our ships with OUR missiles. Let's consider the destructive capabilities of potential adversaries' missiles on targets similar to our cruisers, or BOD, for example. And further. The question of the effectiveness or not of armor protection on ships could be solved by full-scale tests of the destruction of an armored box with an armor thickness of 100-150 mm (possibly 200) with a missile similar to the most massive TAM missiles. Only for God's sake not with Granite and not with YaBCH. It is not so difficult to do this by sheathing the target with armor plates, you can partially. You can make spaced armor. And directing there a real missile with a normal warhead. (We can send a missile to any part of the ship, even through a window?) And next to an unarmored target. And compare the results.
    Reasoning of the type, armor will appear- heavy RCC with armor-piercing warheads will not accept. To create a new rocket and carrier for it is the whole old fleet to a landfill. It is not so simple.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 10 February 2016 15: 27
      0
      And who told you that such tests were not carried out? I have already mentioned the topic "Bastion". On this topic, full-scale compartments and sections of ship hulls were built and fired at firing ranges. Various types of constructive protection were worked out on them and the effect of various weapons was studied. I saw these compartments both at ChSZ and at PSZ, which indicates a very large amount of work.
      1. common man
        common man 10 February 2016 17: 41
        0
        If they saw, then they would share what they saw. Type, warhead mass, armor thickness (if they tested the body armor and not aluminum superstructures). What are the results in comparison. That would be interesting, otherwise we transfer it from empty to empty, but insult each other.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 11 February 2016 11: 01
          0
          You want to say that a university student had such an admission that he was introduced to the structures and allowed to the test results.
          1. common man
            common man 11 February 2016 12: 41
            0
            If you do not know the test results, why are you sure. What is the availability of booking unpromising? Just because it is not put into practice? So we have a lot of useful things that are not being implemented. This is not a criterion.
  • baudolino
    baudolino 10 February 2016 14: 38
    +1
    Until the WWII began, no one suspected that the British fleet was only steep in the number of ships. Due to this, they pulled out the war. So now - there have been no serious fleet collisions for about 70 years (the Falklands do not count).
    And how to fight in modern vessels in an adult way, no one knows until he starts.
  • nnz226
    nnz226 10 February 2016 15: 19
    +4
    And the defeat of the American corvette by 2 "Exocets" from an Iraqi plane (during the Iran-Iraq war) ?! The 1st rocket exploded in the cockpit, where the sailors were resting - it seems 37 people were killed, the 2nd did not explode, but the hit was in the main switchboard of the corvette, with a complete blackout of the ship! And that's all - a waddling trough in the Persian Gulf! The SOS signal came from the boat radio! So "Exocet" is a small rocket both in size and in explosive mass.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 10 February 2016 16: 03
    +5
    Again the same and Kaptsov ... ;-)
    How much passion and expression ... True with the same familiarity and manipulation of facts. But the battleships do not build and do not build ... and the anti-ship missiles perfect and improve everything ...
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 February 2016 16: 32
    -3
    Autromous examples show that missiles that hit
    to board parallel to the water are ineffective.
    Need a high slide and a blow from top to bottom. Which requires more
    accuracy from GOS.
  • zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 10 February 2016 18: 08
    0
    How much time will it take and missiles and other means of air attack to destroy a large, well-tailored ship with developed constructive protection?
    - Do you need to drown it? Could it be easier to turn him into a barge with the wounded?
  • Glad
    Glad 10 February 2016 21: 51
    +2
    Quote: BENNERT
    RCC hit probability is not greater than that of a projectile

    The missile is vulnerable to the effects of electronic warfare, all kinds of traps, weather, has limitations on the use in conditions of excitement, difficulty in capturing targets with low EPR and stealth technology.

    How many Egyptian anti-ship missiles hit the target in the 1973 war? The answer is zero.

    Hmm ... Counter question: how many Argentine "Exocets" hit the target under the influence of electronic warfare and weather conditions? This is the first thing.
    Secondly, the GOS of those P-15s used by the Egyptians were imprisoned under the action against ships of slightly larger displacement than missile boats, and had an export version, i.e. were greatly simplified compared to those installed on the RCC for their fleet.
    Thirdly, you exaggerate the impact of electronic warfare on the GOS RCC. An indirect confirmation of this is the effectiveness of the use of anti-aircraft missiles against aircraft during the Vietnam War. Under ideal conditions, 1,1 - 1,3 missiles per shot down, and in conditions of vigorous maneuvering and use of electronic warfare - 8 - 12 missiles per shot down. That is, the probability of getting about 10%. This despite the fact that the plane is not a ship. He has less EPR and maneuvering capabilities are not comparable with any ship, and the capabilities of the main missile launcher due to the conditions of use are worse than that of the RCC.
    Of course, the probability of hitting 10% is not ice, as they say, but it is not 1-2% as during the Jutland battle.
  • Slippery
    Slippery 10 February 2016 22: 29
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    The author’s counterargument that the damaged ship will be able to return to the base in order to restore combat efficiency there is cunning, because as a result of the lost naval battle the convoy will be defeated, the landing operation will be thwarted, the AUG attack will be repelled, and eventually material damage will be caused, which will require the diversion of resources for restoration the combat effectiveness of the ship instead of releasing additional weapons and ammunition.

    I would add to your post: it’s not a fact that it will return to base on its own, it means to drive tugboats, the ship is damaged, it’s easier to finish (there are examples of the Second World War), and this means escort, where to take the ship from? with UG? . Damaged launch pits with missiles or torpedoes in them will still be a pleasure for ship repair, which means longer repairs. It is clear that everything will be at an accelerated pace, but after damage to the launch pits, HE, etc. in any case, the chassis will be and this is not to shoot the SVD, we distract civilians from ship repair. Plus time, time, time.
    For some reason, the author believes that the RCC will fall exclusively into the galley, crew’s cockpits and smoking areas equipped with fire fighting equipment.
    1. Operator
      Operator 11 February 2016 00: 55
      0
      It is precisely noticed - similarly, in the tactics of the special forces in counter-guerrilla operations, there is a method of intentionally injuring one of the enemy’s fighters, which, when the wounded is evacuated, immediately removes at least three more people from the battle: two with a stretcher and one guard.
  • Glad
    Glad 10 February 2016 23: 38
    +2
    Quote: BENNERT

    and armor

    costs a penny, and the chances are increased seriously

    Increases the chances of what? The ability to complete a combat mission? So this is a fallacy.
    Firstly, a high-explosive cumulative warhead will break through any armor.
    Secondly, as soon as someone starts building ships with serious armor protection, warheads will immediately appear that can not only penetrate this protection, but also deliver a damaging factor inside the target ship. And the cost of such warheads, as well as the modernization of the anti-ship missile fleet for them, will be significantly less than the construction of a "super battleship".

    Understand passive protection is a necessary measure. Ammunition must not be allowed into the ship. The consequences of even one such hit can be fatal. It is necessary to destroy the enemy’s ammunition on approach. In the heyday of the Dreadnoughts did not know how to do this. Now they know how. Therefore, spending the available displacement on useless pieces of iron today does not make sense. It is better to put more SAM and ZRAK.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 10 February 2016 23: 48
      0
      Quote: Glad
      Understand passive protection is a necessary measure. Ammunition must not be allowed into the ship. The consequences of even one such hit can be fatal. It is necessary to destroy the enemy’s ammunition on approach. In the heyday of the Dreadnoughts did not know how to do this. Now they know how. Therefore, spending the available displacement on useless pieces of iron today does not make sense. It is better to put more SAM and ZRAK.

      good We have been trying to convey this to the author for a long time ... But somehow we are either weakly trying, or his "armor" is impenetrable ... what request
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 11 February 2016 10: 05
        0
        "Stirlitz shot Mueller - but the bullet bounced ... Armored! - Guessed Stirlitz ..." (c) wassat
    2. Kars
      Kars 10 February 2016 23: 54
      +2
      Quote: Glad
      It is necessary to destroy the enemy’s ammunition on approach

      And then, what would the ship burn up when fragments of a rocket hit it. And if a volley of a dozen Granites / Basalts is really difficult to imagine, then a dozen exosets or Chinese crafts can now launch a bunch of countries, and even individual organizations. Won Yemen visit and there already claim a dozen sunken ships)))
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 11 February 2016 11: 08
        0
        Why it’s hard to imagine: pr. 1144, 1164, 949, any of them will be shot, so there’s a volley of ten or more.
      2. Glad
        Glad 14 February 2016 01: 51
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Quote: Glad
        It is necessary to destroy the enemy’s ammunition on approach

        And then, what would the ship burn up when fragments of a rocket hit it. And if a volley of a dozen Granites / Basalts is really difficult to imagine, then a dozen exosets or Chinese crafts can now launch a bunch of countries, and even individual organizations. Won Yemen visit and there already claim a dozen sunken ships)))

        Hmm ... And if the ship doesn’t get debris, and not a downed rocket, will the ship make it easier? Will the armor help him? Will there be less fires?
        In my opinion, if you put a few additional air defense systems / air defense systems instead of armor, the chances of survival are greatly increased. And the struggle for survivability is an order of magnitude easier to deal with if you are dealing with debris, and not with regularly used anti-ship missiles.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 10 February 2016 23: 41
    +1
    To summarize ...
    In short, everyone stayed with his own ... Whoever wanted to answer to Oleg on his terms - he took the exam. Along the way, with the same reservations, standing on its own, "if" yes "ka". And a bunch of unnecessary numbers and reservations. No matter how the child amuses himself, anyhow, he cries ... For that we learned a lot about the anti-ship missile system, which, probably, even the designers themselves do not know lol But, as noted, armor is still cooler and battleships with battleships are its prophets laughing Who did not want - he just watched and "enjoyed" winked
    Well ... Since such "nicks" are of great interest among new arrivals, so we stock up on popcorn (seeds, beer - whatever you like hi ) and we look forward to continuing the glorious series about evil and treacherous rockets and persistent good armor yes lol
  • Volganin
    Volganin 11 February 2016 06: 45
    +1
    The author wants the ship to go under water immediately? Why?) One or two good hits and the main systems of the ship are disabled. And "its contents", as it is now fashionable to say, burns with a hell of a flame) Strange article.