Military Review

You can not book a modern ship

226
You can not book a modern ship



Published articles on ship's armor are written by non-specialists who are not familiar with the concept of metacentric height, stability, and center of gravity of a ship. As a result, all conclusions are far from reality. Hang up thousands of tons of armor and sail. Kiel up.

Argue that bronepoyas withstand rocket hit. All those who say so do not understand that the ancient ships of Bronepoyas were in the form of a narrow “strip” along the waterline. If you raise it higher - the ship will immediately overturn. Therefore, to protect the entire board is impossible. Impossible!

The armor belt with a thickness of 100 mm and a height of 5 meters with a hundred-meter length of the citadel would weigh almost 400 tons! And this is only from one side. Armor lovers believe that armor plates are hanging in the air. And it is not. An armored ship will require a more durable, and hence a heavy power set: stringers and frames. The result will be a behemoth the size of a battleship. Moving such a carcass off the ground is still a problem, the battleship will need atomic power plants of enormous power.

Once the French built such a ship, with the complete protection of the board, and called it “Dupuy de Lom”. Despite the attempts of the mountain shipbuilders, this “de Lom” barely crawled under its own weight. Three steam engines could not even provide an 20-junction, the cruiser showed all 19,7 ties on the measured mile. How far could he go?

Its entire board, from the underwater part to the upper deck, was protected by 100-mm armor, which was mounted on top of a double skin with a thickness of 20 mm. Whatever the “Dupuis de Lom” overturned, its armor was made of special steel of low density, the recipe of which has now been lost, aha-ahaha ...

May the reader forgive me for such a beginning. But, you see, the joke is funny.

Masterpieces of Marine Engineering

Despite the protests of modern specialists, история knows a lot of examples of highly protected warships. Whose armored all over the board combined perfectly with adequate size, powerful armament and high speed. A simple example is the Russian “Ishmael”.

But the most interesting is “Dupuis de Lom”. The French armored cruiser of the end of the 19th century, whose constructive “finds” could be useful in the creation of modern ships.



As you may have guessed, everything that is written in the beginning of the article is a lie. The Dupuis de Lom was one of the fastest cruisers of its era. Even faster than the Aurora built a decade later.

But the main feature of “de Loma” was its phenomenal, even for that era, security. ALL BOARD - from the stem to the stern, from the underwater part to the upper deck was covered with 100-mm armor plates, under which was thick (twice thicker than modern ships) sheathing of soft structural steel.



The fantastic appearance of the cruiser was supplemented with a sloping back with a bow and two massive battle towers of the superstructure. The shape of the stem was dictated not by the requirements of the “stealth” technology, but by the commonplace desire to reduce the mass of the bow, while eliminating the risk of damage to the deck with powder gases when firing the bow tower of the Ledger. The feed had a similar form.

The main problem of the “Dupuis de Loma” was not the armor, but the technological level of 1888 of the year when this first-class ship was laid.

13 boilers and three steam engines hardly produced the entire 13 ths. Hp For comparison: the typical destroyer of our time has on the shafts to 100 000 hp

If, as an experiment, to throw out rusty junk and equip “de Lom” with high-performance diesel engines and gas turbines with a modern electric transmission, then he would probably have overcome the line in the 30 nodes.

For similar reasons, the cruiser had poor seaworthiness and suffered from inadequate stability. He swayed heavily in the storm, unpleasantly lurched around the bends and reluctantly returned to an even keel. Alas, its creators did not know about active stabilizers pitching. In 1897, they guessed to equip the cruiser with the zygomatic keels, which markedly improved its stability. But due to a too weak powerplant, the “de Loma” speed dropped to 18 knots.

The next drawback was the defects of armor plates. However, these are problems of shipbuilders of the XIX century.



“Dupuis de Lom” was the pride of the French fleetIt was actively used for diplomatic purposes, demonstrating the technological power and capabilities of France. I visited Germany, Spain, and Russia. Unfortunately, the service life of ships of the armor and steam era was short-lived. A decade later, “de Lom” is outdated and, due to the rapid deterioration of the mechanisms, was put into reserve.

Remaining the only ship of its project, “de Lom” turned out to be excessively steep, roads and roads for its tasks. Still, at the end of the XIX century power plant power 13 ths hp and the eight turrets with 194 and 164 mm caliber guns seemed inconceivable to a cruiser class ship.

The main thing that interests us in this story: French engineers on antediluvian technologies of the XIX century. managed to build a ship with a solid side protection, having packed in 6700 tonnes of displacement. For all its incredible security, the “de Lom” cruiser was 1,5 times less destroyer! If such a ship were in modern combat, it would be completely invulnerable to modern missiles and air attack weapons.

Now will begin objections about the lack of horizontal protection. The only 30-mm armor deck “de Loma” was held deep in the hull, below the level of the overhead line.

The creators of the cruiser simply did not see the special need to install an armored deck system. Do not forget that they had their own “smut” with the placement of eight gun turrets (two of which had 200 mm walls). In contrast to modern compact DPS, these multi-ton designs rose above the upper deck, worsening the already unimportant stability.

Problems with a set of body could be solved in an obvious way: the inclusion of armor elements in the power set of the body, like the armored capsule of the legendary IL-2. Saving weight on frames and cladding - hundreds and even thousands of tons. The complexity of the work is compensated by the power of modern technology. By the way, this technique was successfully used by the Japanese in the construction of their cruisers in the 1920s, who did not know about modern composites, CAD software packages, plasma cutting, promising welding methods and industrial installations that allow steel sheets to bend at any angle, forming double surfaces curvature.

The cruiser “Dupuis de Lom” is fully consistent with the concept of the shape of a highly secure warship of the 21st century. The armored “box” swinging on the waves, which wanted to sneeze on falling into it the debris of downed rockets, all sorts of planning bombs, “Harpoons”, “Exosets” and Chinese fakes that bred around the world in quantities that number in tens of thousands.



On the upper deck only protected watertight covers of missile silos and two to four anti-aircraft complexes of the near defense (“Dirk” / “Phalanx”).

The only noticeable detail is the squat tower of the superstructure, with flat antennas placed on its walls, made according to the PAR technology.

A modern ship is capable of performing most tasks without radar. All “Harpoons” and “Calibres” are induced EXCLUSIVELY according to external target designation data. The loss of the entire RLC will not affect the capabilities of the anti-submarine defense. The connection is extremely resistant to damage: you can look back at “Zamvolt” and apply retractable from the antenna housing. Finally, a satellite phone, lying in the pocket of each officer.

With the development of anti-aircraft missiles with active seeker that do not require external illumination, it became possible to shoot missiles on homing, according to other ships or the onboard helicopter radar. The possibility of direct participation in the air defense / missile defense system of ships and the guidance of anti-aircraft missiles was originally built in modern AWACS aircraft (E-2 mod. D) or F-35 fighter jets.

October 24 2014 of the year during the exercise was successfully carried out with the help of SM-6 rockets a massive attack of low-flying subsonic and supersonic targets simulating the corresponding anti-ship missiles. The successful interception of the GQM-163A supersonic training target (corresponding in characteristics and flight profile to the Mosquito P-270 rocket and the BQM-74 subsonic training target) was performed. Both targets were intercepted during the flight at ultra-low altitude with over-the-horizon launches of the SM-6. The carrier ship itself did not see training targets beyond the radio horizon. and intercepted them using SM-6 active homing heads.


A damaged but not surrendered destroyer can still be used as a floating arsenal. You must agree that it is much better to have in your order an extra fifty missiles and other weapons than a pile of burnt debris on the ocean floor.

Finally, nothing puts him to discharge his ammunition to the end, covering the enemy with a flock of “Calibrov”.

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sensatus
    Sensatus 12 February 2016 06: 39
    41
    It seems that this holivar about to book or not to book among couch specialists will be eternal. Already tired of reading articles on this topic
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Sensatus
        Sensatus 12 February 2016 07: 24
        17
        I wrote not "read", but "Count". And I read them not without pleasure.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 12 February 2016 07: 24
        -9
        Quote: BENNERT
        a) do not read

        + 1. I do not read.
        Quote: BENNERT
        b) Better about ships than about Ukraine

        Not. Already better about Ukraine.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 07: 30
          +6
          Essentially there is something to add

          How around toned the armored DePue de Lom did not roll over?
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 12 February 2016 16: 20
            +1
            As a rule, sofa experts share a bunch of performance characteristics + people + terrain + enemy, due to which they create in their articles the appearance of a "complete intelligent author's thought", as one of the options, he just stayed away from places where you can roll over.
          2. Outsmarted
            Outsmarted 12 February 2016 16: 56
            +8
            By increasing the metacentric height due to dead ballast in the keel. But it all uses the ship's valuable displacement. Theoretically, you can create a well-armored destroyer with an armament nomenclature like Arly’s example, but then it’s worth adding a couple more thousand tons (maybe more: armor plus dead ballast to compensate for it) to the displacement and as a result get another one and a half two meters of draft on top of that Arly has it. This is about 10-11 meters of draft, which firstly reduces cruising / maximum speed and accordingly reduces the cruising range (with the same power plants and the size of fuel tanks), not to mention the number of straits / pools that these destroyers can use.
            And further. About torpedoes. The main reason why the number of ships sunk by torpedoes is much less than such missiles. Modern ships rarely find themselves against each other at a distance of a torpedo attack. Not the main reason for this. For a submarine, there is almost always a more important goal. For a conventional boat, the destruction of enemy transports (with or without a convoy) will always be a priority, rather than the destruction of an escort. No strategic missile carrier or multi-purpose boat will detect itself, even if it has detected an enemy ship. They always have a more important (strategic perhaps!) Goal. But in the case when, for example, there is an attack on a warrant of ships, then what? And then it doesn’t matter how much armor they have stuck on the surface target, it will go down anyway.
      3. inkass_98
        inkass_98 12 February 2016 07: 29
        18
        Quote: BENNERT
        a) do not read

        a) do not advise others what to do, and they will not tell you where to go hi .
        Quote: BENNERT
        b) Better about ships than about Ukraine

        b) here I agree. There is nothing new, and the transfusion from empty to empty is already tired.
        Z.Y. And why Kaptsov is not sitting in the General Staff, he would have solved all the problems of the fleet at a time!
        1. nerd.su
          nerd.su 12 February 2016 11: 32
          20
          Quote: inkass_98
          b) here I agree. There is nothing new, and the transfusion from empty to empty is already tired.
          Z.Y. And why Kaptsov is not sitting in the General Staff, he would have solved all the problems of the fleet at a time!

          You do not understand yet? Kaptsov - Severstal literary negro laughing Prepares public opinion.
          Indeed, modern armadillos are the dream of any metallurgical company.
          1. Vladimir 5
            Vladimir 5 April 1 2018 11: 59
            -1
            Once Dreadnought was built to the thunder of criticism. A sample for example - you always need to get ahead of your neighbors in the development of funds, and without pilot samples with field testing, it will remain on paper, and today it’s virtual in general. For example, the United States Zumvolt, although it tends to go in the negative direction, but the developments on it will move the construction of the fleet to a new level. Secondly, today's technology and robots cease the dominance of monsters in the direction of compactness and low visibility, with better weapons. Here is an unbreakable version for warheads up to 500 kg of VV RCC, (these are not armor-piercing shells) of a low-sided (better loaded) test ship that have prospects. And to create an autonomous, or with a minimum crew ... The direction looks neglecting, therefore it is necessary to process and trim the idea ...
        2. aleks 62 next
          aleks 62 next 12 February 2016 11: 34
          +1
          ..... And why Kaptsov is not sitting in the General Staff, he would have solved all the problems of the fleet at a time! ...

          ... Not at the General Staff, but at least at the Rubin Central Design Bureau .... laughing
          1. Dart2027
            Dart2027 12 February 2016 12: 25
            +2
            Quote: aleks 62 next
            at least at the Rubin Central Design Bureau

            Rubin is building submarines.
            1. Mooh
              Mooh 12 February 2016 13: 48
              16
              Rubin is building submarines.

              So it is even better. A diving missile battleship is much better than just a missile battleship. laughing
              And if Poghosyan is also pulled up to this topic ...
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 12 February 2016 14: 38
                +4
                And we never heard of constructive criticism :-)
              2. goose
                goose 16 February 2016 15: 40
                0
                Surkuf had a reservation. Perfect option. And the same Frenchman.
        3. rumor_today
          rumor_today 14 February 2016 00: 30
          +1
          Quote: inkass_98
          Z.Y. And why Kaptsov is not sitting in the General Staff, he would have solved all the problems of the fleet at a time!

          Because there are children who need to sit. If you have at least a hundred spans in your forehead, you will never find yourself there.
    2. Vladimir 23rus
      Vladimir 23rus 12 February 2016 09: 12
      +6
      Wash pretty funny. Let them argue, and we will honor.
    3. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 12 February 2016 16: 29
      +5
      I insist you can not stop there, it's time to move into the underwater plane!

      For instance!

      An underwater atomic battleship-aircraft carrier equipped with a stealth-amphibious stealth shuttle squadron with a cruising speed of 300 knots, a railgun and combat lasers!
      1. bk316
        bk316 12 February 2016 19: 50
        +2
        You forgot: nuclear submarine aerospacebattleship aircraft carrier
        1. ibnvladimir
          ibnvladimir April 27 2016 00: 17
          0
          Quote: bk316
          nuclear submarine-space-battleship-aircraft carrier

          refueling
      2. the villain
        the villain 12 February 2016 21: 43
        +1
        Quote: kugelblitz
        An underwater nuclear-powered battleship equipped with a stealth-amphibious stealth shuttle squadron,

        Her, an airstrike wing of two dozen Tu95, but it is not solid somehow. wassat
      3. izGOI
        izGOI 13 February 2016 23: 34
        0
        Do not forget to add 2-3 dozens of ekranoplanes, as well as the possibility of putting into a geostationary orbit backup communication satellites and GLONASS.
    4. Sweles
      Sweles 12 February 2016 17: 47
      +6
      sweet in its style. How did the radars prevent the warship? What stick out high and unmask the ship? How else?

      6. The carrier ship itself did not see the training targets beyond the radio horizon and intercepted them using the SM-6 active homing heads.


      it’s generally a pearl, well, they don’t see the SP heads first, and where will they fly at the exit, to the right, to the left, or will they stick out above the deck to detect the target? Absurdity. Or such a picture — these cm6 jump high above the ship and begin to search for targets, but it takes TIME, and time in war, when you are fired with guided weapons, is always scarce — no bad thought.

      The loss of the entire RLC does not affect the capabilities of anti-submarine defense. Communication is extremely resistant to damage: you can look at the “Zamvolt” and apply the retractable from the antenna body. Finally, a satellite phone in each officer’s pocket.


      it’s also nonsense, Kaptsov probably didn’t hear about the destroyer, because there was a suppression of radio communications by wide-band interference, so external guidance of the weapon is always fraught with no locators and no communication, and therefore without weapons at all.
      As for 10cm of armor, as on this Dupontel, such armor is simply ridiculous for modern missiles - it will shoot from side to side. Granites are generally armored in front, so they simply break through the armor of the ship and further undermine it.
      In my opinion, this article by Kaptsov was written for American congressmen to milk more money for new cuts.
      1. vyinemeynen
        vyinemeynen 13 February 2016 06: 37
        +1
        Quote: Sveles
        As for 10cm of armor, as on this Dupontel, such armor is simply ridiculous for modern missiles - it will shoot from side to side. Granites are generally armored in front, so they simply break through the armor of the ship and further undermine it.
        In my opinion, this article by Kaptsov was written for American congressmen to milk more money for new cuts.

        Totally agree.
        1. vyinemeynen
          vyinemeynen 13 February 2016 06: 57
          +3
          For the author, booking is an end in itself!
      2. opus
        opus 13 February 2016 14: 06
        +4
        Quote: Sveles
        it’s generally a pearl, well, they don’t see the SP heads first, and where will they fly at the exit, to the right, to the left, or will they stick out above the deck to detect the target? Absurdity. Or such a picture, these sm6 jump high above the ship and begin to search for targets, but it takes TIME

        I will disappoint you
        1.RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM really can and strikes targets horizontally, without the participation of the ROC ship.

        she has ARGSN, not PRGSN (like others) and an advanced guidance system

        On the marching section, the rocket is controlled by an inertial autopilot - with the possibility of course correction according to commands from the carrier ship - and on the terminal section, it activates an active homing head and accurately guides the target.

        her "head" is from the AIM-120 AMRAAM (in the same frequency range with the carrier's radar (wavelength 3 cm)), as well as a modified control and guidance system unit WGU /
        IT IS SUFFICIENT TO RECEIVE AZIMUTH FROM EXTERNAL TSU (RTR), RANGE AND APPROXIMATE HEIGHT OF THE GOAL - START IN THAT ZONE, FURTHER WHEN CAPTURING THE GOAL, ARGSN SM-6 "DOES IT ALL"
        2.And those only ARGS can do "this"
        Quote: Sveles
        or will they stick around the deck to pinpoint a target?

        ZRK-S200, ZUR 5VV28 *, 5V21V "target acquisition AS GOS in flight)

        (of course, it’s not quite like Sm-6, but still)
        And not only 200m is possible.

        3.We ( fool ) they also set the basis for the GQM 163A Coyote


        Quote: Sveles
        nonsense too, Kaptsov probably didn’t hear about the destroyer Cook, there was just a suppression of radio communications by wide-band interference,

        1. I haven’t heard either. Are you about the letter "Johnny's beloved Mary"?
        2. I can't understand (if you mean "that" case) how an automated complex of protection aircraft from attacking RVV and SAM, with a CONSUMPTION of 3,6 kW (for radiation of about 1-1,5 kW) could "kill" Aegis with "spy-1" (6 mW) + a bunch of REP

        3. "Khibiny" / KS-418E - project of the REP complex for export aircraft Su-24MK / Su-24MK2 ... the weaponry is not pleasant the development is not completed, you will not see them on any SU-24 (except for the layouts)

        Quote: Sveles
        external guidance is always fraught with

        Just the ROC is NOT on the carrier (PU), but outside, the data is transferred to the carrier, "embedded" in the head of the missile defense system, it starts into the zone and there, near its radar, irradiates the target
    5. goose
      goose 16 February 2016 15: 37
      +1
      This ship had practically no separation into compartments, due to which weight was saved. The flooding of any of the large compartments practically meant the seabed for the ship.
  2. magirus401
    magirus401 12 February 2016 06: 54
    16
    Cool, the armor is strong and insanity is getting stronger
  3. nazar_0753
    nazar_0753 12 February 2016 07: 19
    +2
    In my opinion, Kaptsov is a particularly rare type of troll. First he writes that it is necessary to book, and then he immediately refutes himself, and so on in a circle. Apparently, there is nothing for a person to do, from the word completely laughing
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 12 February 2016 07: 27
      +2
      Quote: nazar_0753
      and then immediately disproves itself

      Did not notice
      1. Delta
        Delta 12 February 2016 12: 24
        +6
        Quote: BENNERT
        Did not notice


        Oleg, what did you notice behind yourself?))) Have you at least once agreed with the criticism and arguments of your opponents?
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 33
          +1
          Quote: Delta
          Have you ever agreed with the criticism and arguments of your opponents?

          Yes, if they are true

          do you have any arguments against, in this matter
          1. Delta
            Delta 12 February 2016 12: 39
            +4
            Quote: BENNERT
            Yes, if they are true


            do not remember that. Already not the first year I laugh at your articles here

            Quote: BENNERT
            do you have any arguments against, in this matter

            because there’s no longer that I’m tired. All arguments are like pea wall
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 43
              -3
              Quote: Delta
              do not remember that.

              Kars proved not a single case of damage to protected ships with a small caliber bomb
              sorted out a number of examples - I finally agreed
              Quote: Delta
              All arguments are like pea wall

              This is the essence of the dispute. Find counterarguments.

              If there are none, admit wrong and agree with the other party
              Quote: Delta
              because no

              they weren’t special either. What can you argue on this topic? Nothing good
            2. Assistant
              Assistant 12 February 2016 14: 03
              0
              because there’s no longer that I’m tired. All arguments are like pea wall


              Yeah, how long has it been said that if an individual guidance missile with a nuclear warhead hits the ship, it will evaporate from side to side, regardless of whether the sides are made of centimeter aluminum or two-meter tungsten carbide, and things are still there.
              1. Razvedka_Boem
                Razvedka_Boem 12 February 2016 20: 31
                +5
                The use of nuclear weapons will mean that everything, absolutely everything will not matter. And before that .. whether the ship has armor or not, it will play a significant role.
                1. Assistant
                  Assistant 12 February 2016 22: 39
                  0
                  The naval battle of the US linear fleet with the fleet of a country that does not have nuclear weapons means a statement of the end of this country. Mene, Tekel, Fares (s).
                  The naval battle of the US Navy with the fleet of a country with nuclear weapons means that
                  everything, absolutely everything will not matter

                  No, of course, there is the option of the US Mochilov against the USSR in principle without using the existing nuclear weapons. Tom Clancy, in one of his novels.
          2. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 13 February 2016 16: 55
            0
            Quote: BENNERT
            Quote: Delta
            Have you ever agreed with the criticism and arguments of your opponents?

            Yes, if they are true

            usually you stop talking if you are pointed out that you are wrong.
    2. RPG_
      RPG_ 12 February 2016 09: 53
      0
      Have you ever read what is written there?
    3. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 12 February 2016 12: 33
      10
      Quote: nazar_0753
      first he writes that it is necessary to book, and then he immediately refutes himself

      Yes, Oleg’s arguments are controversial and ambiguous, but a refutation of himself ??? Oleg in his articles always clearly defends his position on the need for constructive protection of modern ships. Maybe the Navy and shipyards shouldn’t rush headlong to rush to do it, but at least to think carefully and carefully weigh everything would not hurt.
      PS Despite the seeming similarity of the articles, each of them examines and ARGUMENTEDly proves the need for constructive protection of warships in order to increase the chances of their survival in BATTLE conditions, and not when "showing the flag".
      Thank you Oleg, I always read your articles with pleasure. At least the material I read made me think twice. God grant that not only me ...
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 44
        0
        Very good comment
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 12 February 2016 15: 08
          +5
          Then can someone thread enlighten me, is there in the Russian fleet at least one ship with an armored deck or an armored belt? And were there any practical tests, even on mock-ups, how much longer does a ship hold with at least some armor than without?

          not strong in the subject ... hi
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 12 February 2016 16: 45
            +3
            look and, the formation of the tests of the first Soviet cruise missiles. kssch, rss, p-15. there often used old armored cruisers as targets. You may come across information on the resistance of armor belts, etc. etc.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 12 February 2016 16: 54
              +1
              OK thanks
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 12 February 2016 14: 50
        0
        I agree with the comment. the need for constructive protection in the form of armor is a controversial and controversial issue. Here, for example, on landing boats, with great pomp, the fleet of surrendered, this stray is present ...
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 12 February 2016 07: 31
    +6
    Oleg, you are inimitable. Plus for perseverance. The theme is logically confirmed by examples. It remains to wait for constructive criticism with the main argument in the form of nuclear munitions
    1. aba
      aba 12 February 2016 07: 48
      +8
      It remains to wait for constructive criticism with the main argument in the form of nuclear munitions

      And the torpedoes have already been written off ?!
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 12 February 2016 07: 55
        -2
        Quote: aba
        Have torpedoes already been written off?

        Remind, the cases of the combat use of torpedoes since 1945

        in comparison with air attack weapons - more than a dozen sunken ships, all bombs and missiles.
        1. Bear52
          Bear52 12 February 2016 10: 03
          14
          Excuse me, torpedoes of the Argentine CR "General Belgrano" hi
          1. Bennert
            Bennert 12 February 2016 11: 16
            +4
            Quote: Bear52
            Excuse me, torpedoes of the Argentine CR "General Belgrano"

            List of ships sunk and damaged by aircraft:

            Sunk:
            - Sheffield destroyer;
            - the destroyer "Coventry";
            - frigate "Ardent";
            - frigate "Entiloup";
            - amphibious assault ship "Sir Galahed";
            - transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor";


            Pair of A-4 "Skyhawk" rushing head-on attack


            Damaged:
            - the destroyer "Glasgow" - 454-kg unexploded bomb stuck in the engine room;
            - the destroyer "Entrim" - unexploded bomb;
            - destroyer Glamorgan - unexploded anti-ship missile system Exozet;
            - the frigate Plymouth - four (!) Unexploded bombs;
            - the frigate "Argonaut" - two unexploded bombs, the "Argonaut" was in the balance from death;
            - the frigate "Elekriti" - unexploded bombs;
            - Arrow frigate - damaged by aircraft cannon fire;
            - frigate "Broadsward" - punched through the unexploded bomb;

            13 Account: 1
            here it is the ratio of victims of torpedoes and attacks, using air attack in the Falkland War
            1. DrVintorez
              DrVintorez 12 February 2016 12: 14
              +4
              score 13-1 is the absolute value. in this case, it does not make sense: it is necessary to calculate the effectiveness, but is it more logical to express it as a percentage, how many aviation attacks and how many torpedo attacks? what is the ratio of efficiency? you can do even more fun: take WWII statistics and calculate the number of attacks on aircraft and submarines. add artillery to the heap.
              1. Bennert
                Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 26
                +1
                Quote: DrVintorez
                efficiency calculation is needed, but it is more logical to express it as a percentage, how many aviation attacks were and how many torpedo attacks? what is the ratio of efficiency?

                What will it give. More than ten times more planes, endless attacks, threats from all directions

                Each sortie is another "victim" among the ships of the squadron
                13 - this is not the whole list, only destroyers and frigates are taken into account, without transports and landing ships, such as the sunk Atalntik Conveyor





                Quote: DrVintorez
                You can do even more fun: take WWII statistics

                where does WWII speak for the Falklands
                1. DrVintorez
                  DrVintorez 12 February 2016 12: 33
                  +8
                  the plane is easier to shoot down than to drown PL BK has a lot more (at least torpedoes, at least KR)

                  I really like this logic "What will it give.", and right there just below "Almost every combat mission". what does almost everyone mean? numbers are needed. but the feeling that the Argentine aviation and 20 combat missions did not.

                  brrrr ... in the list "landing ship" Sir Galahad "", and right there you write that we do not count the landing ship.
                  1. Bennert
                    Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 46
                    +3
                    Quote: DrVintorez
                    an airplane is easier to shoot down than to drown

                    As a result - a third of the squadron rushed into the trash
                    Quote: DrVintorez
                    in the list "landing ship" Sir Galahad "", and right there you write that we do not count the landing ship.

                    here is the complete list:
                    Sunk:
                    - Sheffield destroyer;
                    - the destroyer "Coventry";
                    - frigate "Ardent";
                    - frigate "Entiloup";
                    - amphibious assault ship "Sir Galahed";
                    - transport / helicopter carrier "Atlantic Conveyor";
                    - landing boat Foxtrot Four (from the composition of the UDC HMS Fearless).
                    Damaged:
                    - the destroyer "Glasgow" - 454-kg unexploded bomb stuck in the engine room;
                    - the destroyer "Entrim" - unexploded bomb;
                    - the destroyer "Glamorgan" - PKR "Exochet" (the only one on the list, damaged by fire from the shore);
                    - the frigate Plymouth - four (!) Unexploded bombs;
                    - the frigate "Argonaut" - two unexploded bombs, the "Argonaut" was in the balance from death;
                    - the frigate "Elekriti" - unexploded bombs;
                    - Arrow frigate - damaged by aircraft cannon fire;
                    - frigate "Broadsward" - punched through the unexploded bomb;
                    - frigate "Brilliant" - shot by "Daggers" from a strafing flight;
                    - landing ship "Sir Lancelot" - 454 kg unexploded bomb;
                    - the landing ship "Sir Tristram" - damaged by bombs, completely burned out, evacuated on a semi-submerged platform;
                    - amphibious assault ship "Sir Bedivere" - unexploded aerial bomb;
                    - British Way tanker - unexploded bombshell;
                    - transport "Stromness" - unexploded air bomb.

                    By the way, "Sir Galahad" burned down the second time. The first time the bomb didn’t explode
                    1. DrVintorez
                      DrVintorez 12 February 2016 12: 49
                      +1
                      do you think this poor sir or not? =)
                      1. Bennert
                        Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 53
                        0
                        Quote: DrVintorez
                        do you think this poor sir or not? =)

                        the list is clearly visible?
                      2. DrVintorez
                        DrVintorez 12 February 2016 13: 04
                        -2
                        Quote: BENNERT
                        Quote: DrVintorez
                        do you think this poor sir or not? =)

                        the list is clearly visible?

                        Quote: BENNERT
                        this is not the whole list, only destroyers and frigates are taken into account, without transports and landing ships, such as the sunk Atalntik Conveyor

                        quite visible.
                        if sir is not counted, then 12-1. trifle, but you have all the arguments based on such trifles.
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                  2. your1970
                    your1970 12 February 2016 13: 52
                    +2
                    Yes, his grenades are of the wrong system "(c) BSP
                    How did Americans throw them so famously with air bombs ....
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Assistant
            Assistant 12 February 2016 13: 57
            +3
            13 Account: 1
            here it is the ratio of victims of torpedoes and attacks, using air attack in the Falkland War


            Suddenly, 13 British ships sunk by Argentinean aircraft did not stop the operation. And 1 sunk Argentinean cruiser led to the fact that the players cowardly crammed into their ports. Do not explain why?
      2. rumpeljschtizhen
        rumpeljschtizhen 12 February 2016 10: 47
        0
        in the falkland war
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 12 February 2016 10: 58
        +3
        Quote: BENNERT
        Remind, the cases of the combat use of torpedoes since 1945

        The Pakistani submarine Khangor torpedoed the Indian frigate Khukri in 1971, and there was another attempt at a torpedo attack from a Pakistani submarine in 1965 but to no avail.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 07
          0
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The Pakistan submarine Khangor torpedoed the Indian frigate Khukri 1971,

          At the same time, recall the number of episodes using aircraft and anti-ship missiles in the Indo-Pakistani wars

          how many submarine attacks in the Persian Gulf are registered
          or in the strait of taiwan
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 12 February 2016 15: 27
            +4
            Quote: BENNERT
            At the same time, recall the number of episodes using aviation and RCC

            I am not opposed to ballistic protection and partial reservation of important ship components.
  5. avt
    avt 12 February 2016 10: 51
    +6
    Quote: tchoni
    Oleg, you are inimitable. Plus for perseverance.

    Well, there is still something to work for Oleg, there is! Here for example
    If, as an experiment, throw out the rusty junk and equip the “de Lom” with highly efficient diesel engines and gas turbines with modern electric transmission, then he would surely overcome the 30 knot line
    request what How do you command me to understand this! ?? What are 30 nodes? Take you higher - 40! Again why diesel ??? Atomic, armored! Well, with illustrations No. runny - What kind of pictures of unfinished buildings ???? negative (Photo of the Frankish cruiser by the way good ) It is necessary to put not just pictures, but quite a documentary footage from the Japanese film "Space battleship Yamato"! laughing
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 12 February 2016 15: 57
      +5
      Quote: avt
      but quite a documentary footage from the Japanese film "Space battleship" Yamato "!


      Yes, everything has already been "stolen" before us ... "Arpeggio of blued steel" ... ;-)
      Again boobs ... wassat
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 February 2016 18: 15
        +4
        Something you have Haruna painfully dressed. And who stole her signature overcoat? smile
  6. aleks 62 next
    aleks 62 next 12 February 2016 11: 36
    +2
    ..... It remains to wait for constructive criticism with the main argument in the form of nuclear weapons ...

    ... Well, why so cool ???? ... laughing .... I think the supersonic anti-ship missile with the armor-piercing part is quite enough .... It will be cheaper .... lol
    1. Kars
      Kars 12 February 2016 11: 50
      +7
      Quote: aleks 62 next
      I think the supersonic anti-ship missile with the armor-piercing part is quite enough .... It will be cheaper ..

      Are you sure they’re cheaper? They’re very big. Yes, and I don’t understand why everyone is sure that the presence of armor automatically deletes from the air defense ship
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 February 2016 12: 57
        +4
        Quote: Kars
        Are you sure they’re cheaper? They’re very big. Yes, and I don’t understand why everyone is sure that the presence of armor automatically deletes from the air defense ship

        So they regularly write to us that ship’s air defense is inefficient and cannot even intercept an ordinary target. smile
        1. Kars
          Kars 12 February 2016 13: 30
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          So they regularly write to us that ship’s air defense is inefficient and cannot even intercept an ordinary target

          You obviously read something wrong. They write that the systems MAY miss, and this is a big difference. And the more anti-ship missiles are launched, the greater the chance to miss, and immediately launch a lot of Granites or Volcanoes is very difficult to imagine. This can be done by several units of the Russian fleet .
          1. aleks 62 next
            aleks 62 next 12 February 2016 13: 53
            +2
            ..... it’s very hard to imagine a lot of granites or volcanoes running right away ....

            .... I think a lot and it is not necessary .... Because of the high speed - 2,5mAh - 800m / s ..... This is the speed of an artillery shell ..... Do you know a lot of cases of successful interception of artillery shells ???? .... At this speed, the dimensions are uncritical .... Therefore, in due time, emphasis was placed on supersonic to the detriment of range ..... hi
            1. Kars
              Kars 12 February 2016 14: 11
              +4
              Quote: aleks 62 next
              And you know a lot of cases of successful interception of artillery shells ???? .... At this speed, the dimensions are uncritical.

              Actually they play. You are interested to read the characteristics of the air defense, and all your questions will disappear.

              Altitude affected area (SAM) 25-25 000 m 25-25 000 m [9]
              SAM speed to 2000 m / s to 2100 m / s [9]
              Target speed 50-1300 m / s to 3000 m / s [2]
            2. opus
              opus 13 February 2016 15: 11
              +1
              Quote: aleks 62 next
              Do you know a lot of cases of successful interception of artillery shells ????

              Raphael’s Iron Dome system, adopted in 2009. It is capable of intercepting targets such as 155-mm artillery shells, Kassam rockets or 122-mm rockets for Grad MLRS at ranges of up to 70 km with a probability of up to 0,9.

              MANTIS Modular, Automatic and Network capable Targeting and Interception System




              SARA (Solution Against RAM Attacks) based on PzH-2000- work on the topic SysFIa (System Flugabwehr), has not yet been completely canceled in favor of MANTIS.
              Of course, while all this is more against mines and MLRS, analogues of the AGM-88 HARM.
              But after all, the interception of the BR has recently been a miracle.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 February 2016 14: 06
            +2
            Quote: Kars
            .And the more anti-ship missiles will be launched, the greater the chance to miss, and immediately launch a lot of Granites or Volcanoes is very difficult to imagine.

            Why is it hard. 2 "loaves" in total will give 48 "granites". In Soviet times, 16 "malachites" from a pair of 670M were to be added to them. And KRVB with "tupole" mrap.
            It was believed that with such forces it is possible to attack the AUG and with a very high probability to drown the AB.
            1. Kars
              Kars 12 February 2016 14: 15
              +2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Well, why is it hard.

              hard, very hard.
              exchange a couple of loaves for a cruiser, it doesn’t look like a victory. And it's not a fact that the cruiser will sink, but will not return to the base for repair. then, as the submarines are unlikely to be able to leave after such a unmasking.
              And again you have not read what they wrote to you?
              Quote: Kars
              This can be done by several units of the Russian fleet.

              The rest of the countries are not nearby. Now dozens of Chinese anti-ship missiles will release barmales in Syria from the coast, and what happens if one breaks through to the Varangian?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 12 February 2016 17: 39
                0
                Quote: Kars
                exchange a couple of loaves for a cruiser, it doesn’t look like a victory. And it's not a fact that the cruiser will sink, but will not return to the base for repair. then, as the submarines are unlikely to be able to leave after such a unmasking.

                Where can I go? Do you remember the launch range of the "granites"? And the cruiser is also not armed with "trident" - to use the weapon, he will have to go to our shores.

                And by the way, how much will the proposed cruiser cost? And will it not turn out that even the US budget will be able to support them in an amount comparable to the Nimitz and Ford, or even the Seawulfs. smile
                1. Kars
                  Kars 12 February 2016 18: 44
                  +4
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Where can I go? Do you remember the launch range of the "granites"?

                  Not so big. Especially considering how far the submarine can launch a missile strike. And even if you remember that you need to use a low trajectory.

                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And by the way, how much will the proposed cruiser cost?

                  10% more expensive than a similar unarmored ship.
    2. tchoni
      tchoni 12 February 2016 16: 49
      +4
      supersonic pkr with decent warheads are, as a rule, things of soviet or russian production ... Yes, and ammunition of such pkr is usually very limited.
    3. the villain
      the villain 12 February 2016 21: 59
      -1
      Quote: aleks 62 next
      ... Well, why so cool ???? ... .... I think the supersonic anti-ship missiles with armor-piercing part are quite enough

      And there are thermobaric ...
  7. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 12 February 2016 13: 05
    +4
    Quote: tchoni
    It remains to wait constructive criticism with the main argument in the form of nuclear weapons

    Exactly. In the meantime, all criticism boils down to - "They are not stupid in the Navy - if it were necessary, they booked it long ago."
    Oleg + for the article and for consistent persistence.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 12 February 2016 14: 04
      +5
      Consistent stubbornness. And constructive criticism has been repeatedly - but it is "reflected by the armor" and "does not go deep" - so why repeat it on the "eleventh time"? - enjoy ...
  8. Botanologist
    Botanologist 12 February 2016 14: 18
    +5
    The objection is simple - what is the penetrating ability of Brahmos or Onyx? Taking into account the fact that they pierce the ships right through, they will pierce 10 centimeters. Even if modern models do not break through, then "dressing" the charge in armor-piercing leather, like concrete-piercing ammunition, will not be a problem at all. Therefore, the appearance of such cruisers will simply lead to the appearance of clones of missiles with increased penetrating power, that's all.
    Moreover, if a modern ship such a missile pierces in both sides, and the explosion goes in all thrones, then the armored vessel will be pierced in one side, but the whole explosion will go into the internal space, including the top. Well, what are we going to do with an almost whole building filled with a mash of bulkheads, etc.? I must be proud that I didn’t drown.
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 12 February 2016 19: 40
      +2
      Quote: Botanologist
      Therefore, the appearance of such cruisers will simply lead to the appearance of clones of missiles with increased penetration, that's all.

      This argument has been repeatedly expressed, but either the respected author believes that creating an anti-ship missile with an armor-piercing warhead is something from the category of fiction, or his "armor" is too strong for the penetrating ability of such a "boring and banal" argument ... lol
  9. The comment was deleted.
  • jonht
    jonht 12 February 2016 07: 48
    13
    The author stumbled upon rocket weapons, but what about torpedoes, mines or mine-torpedo systems (they were in the USSR, I don't know how they remained now, or everything was written off). Then the question is, how many weapons can this miracle take upon itself without loss of seaworthiness (displacement is not just a mass of displaced water, it is also a payload + hull, how not to seal the iron, it will sink)? How will the armor be assembled: 1 all-welded hull, 2 hinged on the "light" hull of the armoredists? How will the explosion of a warhead (missiles, torpedoes, mines) affect all these joints and connections? Yes, I almost forgot, there is still mass and its inertia, and this is at once 1. maneuvering, 2. keel centering of the hull, 3. branched system of ballast tanks (loss of 3-4 armor plates and here you roll on board). So there are more problems with booking than the author imagines.
    As an option, without special troubles, the construction of the false sides, at a distance of 20 cm with valves (knocked-off pressure caps) 1. dampens the blow, 2. reduces the area of ​​destruction of the fragments, 3. at a fraction of the cost. (double bottom use and use successfully for a long time) ;-).
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 12 February 2016 07: 58
      +6
      Quote: jonht
      what about torpedoes, mines or mine-torpedo systems

      The number of submarines worldwide is 100 times less than the number of combat aircraft

      1:100

      such are the chances of meeting with mine-torpedo weapons, compared with a bomb or anti-ship missiles, they are the main danger and threat. That is why such attention is paid to the protection of the deck and the freeboard
      and how many weapons can take on this miracle without loss of seaworthiness

      Obviously as much as Dupuis-de-Lom
      2 194 x mm
      6 164 x mm
      4 65 x mm
      8 47 x mm
      2 x 450 mm torpedo tubes
      __________
      or equivalent combat load
      loss of 3-4 armor plates and here you roll on board

      hole 50 m2
      - 39 tons. What is 39 tons for 10 tons of a ship? 000%
      Aren't you ashamed to write about some roll?
      1. jonht
        jonht 12 February 2016 08: 33
        +9
        Lose armor plates and not get a leak? (on ships, any cargo is not just dumped, it is distributed and secured, sometimes even smaller masses are enough for tipping over under a set of bad circumstances) Secondly, water is not land and besides the bank there is also pitching (pitching, airborne). If you look closely at all the battleships, most had low sides. We do not consider ships with incomplete armored belts (they do not cover the tank and ships, only gun cellars and the engine room). And actually there was such an engineer-shipbuilder Krylov. He made conclusions from his research (he’s definitely not ready to give, but): 1. full reservations are not necessary, vital mechanisms and other things must be booked, 2. ensure 1/3 of the compartments are flooded, 3. leveling ballast tanks.
        1. Sirocco
          Sirocco 12 February 2016 08: 36
          +7
          Quote: jonht
          (on ships, any cargo is not just dumped, it is distributed and secured, sometimes even smaller masses are enough to capsize in the face of bad circumstances)

          In submarines, the officer on duty also monitors the movement of personnel, and if they accumulate in one place, they transfer ballast.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 12 February 2016 19: 58
            +3
            Quote: Sirocco
            In submarines, the officer on duty also monitors the movement of personnel, and if they accumulate in one place, they transfer ballast.

            What is shown in the film U-Bot (U-96) has long sunk into oblivion. Now there is no such thing. On a combat alert, all hatches, doors, and necks are lifted up, and the l / s is on its power supply. yes Nobody is running anywhere!
        2. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 11: 12
          0
          Quote: jonht
          Lose armor plates and not get a leak?

          And here flow
          You were worried about the armored plates, I explained 39 tons is nothing

          The leak - it is the leak. To do this, there is a system of isolated compartments, pumps and a counter-flooding system. Dr. the fact that the armored ship may not have this leak, the armor helps to localize the damage. That's why she and the armor
          Quote: jonht
          If you look closely at all the battleships, most had low sides

          Not everyone dares to jump from such a "low side", any ship nearby is unexpectedly huge and large
        3. AK64
          AK64 12 February 2016 12: 08
          -1
          And actually there was such an engineer-shipbuilder Krylov. He made conclusions from his research (he’s definitely not ready to give it, but): 1. full booking is not necessary, vital mechanisms and other things need to be booked,

          Amazing You: to refer to Krylov by turning his conclusions exactly the opposite!
          It was Krylov who wrote, according to the experience of the RIA, about the need to reserve the whole side
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 12 February 2016 19: 52
        +1
        Quote: BENNERT
        hole 50 m2
        - 39 tons. What is 39 tons for 10 000 tons of ship?
        Presumably a hole in the board? And the thickness of the armor plate 100mm? Then the ship will receive thousand tons of water depending on the 2-3 compartment! The mechanisms will be torn off the foundations, microcracks will form in the hull through which the water will be filtered. And if this is the energy compartment or the cellar of the RO?
        So, one can say for sure that the 50m2 hole is not equivalent to the loss of the 39t brand skin of the ship's hull.
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco 12 February 2016 08: 18
      +7
      Quote: jonht
      Book the whole building?

      Familiar, welded from a sheet of 5-door to the garage, they say you have thin gates, bolts are flimsy, and so on, they say I myself with a mustache.
      As a result, one box was opened, the gates were turned out, and so they couldn’t be repaired, he suffered with a sledgehammer and cars and drove in, put in new ones, the same ones. laughing You don’t understand your own cockroaches in your head. laughing
      1. Bennert
        Bennert 12 February 2016 11: 06
        +3
        Quote: Sirocco
        Familiar, welded from a sheet of 5-gates to the garage

        What difference does it make to us

        armored ship a priori survivable than unarmored pit
        To destroy such a goal, the enemy needs more time, effort and resources. Everything is obvious
        1. Sirocco
          Sirocco 12 February 2016 15: 31
          +1
          Quote: BENNERT
          Everything is obvious

          Of course it’s obvious. It is obvious that the larger the cabinet, the louder it falls.
          The same principle must be applied to airplanes, completely sheathed with armor, what for speed and maneuverability are needed, think you get a couple of missiles, or shells, but in armor. Maybe this trick will fail, only this is for past centuries. There really is something to choose.
          1. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 13 February 2016 09: 13
            0
            The trick, as you say, will fail. Example Su-25, A-10 "Thunderbolt. Heavy, sluggish, but maximally tenacious and armed.
        2. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan April 27 2017 15: 50
          +2
          Quote: BENNERT
          armored ship a priori survivable than unarmored pit

          this is just a very controversial moment. armor makes sense if it does not break through. What thickness of armor are you going to hang in order to protect yourself from RCC? 100mm does not help.
          they also wrote to you that the same Lom compensated for excess airborne booking by reducing the number of internal bulkheads.
          when breaking the side, and it will be broken, which ship will be more tenacious? the one in which it floods 1/3 of the internal volume, or the one in which it floods a small compartment?
          I remind you that the destroyer used as a confusion during the Second World War survived a lot of hits and missiles and torpedoes before it went to the bottom. and it was not connected with booking at all.
    3. DimanC
      DimanC 12 February 2016 09: 52
      +1
      Previously, it was called the internal armored belt. Like South Dakota, for example ............
    4. DimanC
      DimanC 12 February 2016 09: 52
      0
      Previously, it was called the internal armored belt. Like South Dakota, for example ............
    5. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 12 February 2016 11: 39
      +1
      .... As an option, without special troubles, the construction of false sides, at a distance of 20 cm with valves (knocked-off pressure caps) 1. dampens the blow, 2. reduces the area of ​​damage to the fragments, 3. at a fraction of the cost. (double bottom use and use successfully for a long time) ;-) ....

      ... All this was already ... It was used on battleships ..... It was called differently, but the meaning was the same ...
    6. AK64
      AK64 12 February 2016 12: 05
      +1
      what about torpedoes, mines or mine-torpedo systems

      To study the materiel. Materiel to study.
      Mine / anti-torpedo protection - not armor, but bullets, double bottom, etc. (that is, "let it explode away from the side")
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 12 February 2016 08: 42
    +4
    Put + for Oleg’s perseverance.
    1. jonht
      jonht 12 February 2016 08: 51
      +2
      laughing I did not find a photo "steppe, one gate without a fence and a herd of sheep going through this gate.
  • Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 12 February 2016 09: 11
    12
    Regarding the “Dupuis de Lom.” “Low density armor” is something new in metallurgy. The steel-nickel armor was not cemented (a novelty at the time). The speed is the same story, for that time it was very high speed for an armored cruiser, and the fact that something is not well received, and we don’t know the data on the conditions of the measured mile (depth, wind, excitement ...). The cruiser was designed for a maximum speed of 20 knots, but only 1895 were developed on the tests in 13 186 l with. instead of 14000 hp, which gave a speed of only about 19,73 knots. At that time there were still no exact methods for calculating the propulsion system and many parameters were chosen by approximation, and on some ships the propellers changed at different steps several times. A thin 30 mm deck of "extra soft" armor is also explained by a battle distance of no more than 15 art. cables (the angle of incidence of the projectile is very small), the thin armor of the side against the landmines that have just appeared. The author should read Afanasyev, Schlesinger, Shershov.
    Now back to "our sheep." Booking modern ships. There is protection, this constructive protection is mainly anti-fragmentation, well, you cannot protect the entire ship with adequate armor given the volumes occupied by the modern weapons complex, electronic equipment, etc. Try to protect the armored ship in the photo, not really.
    The minus article, the topic (... horses were mixed in a bunch, people ...) is not disclosed, although thanks for trying.
    1. core
      core 12 February 2016 09: 41
      -11 qualifying.
      apparently did not read the article. you minus.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Bennert
      Bennert 12 February 2016 11: 27
      +2
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      At that time, there were still no exact methods for calculating the propulsive installation

      At the engineers in the XIX century. generally there was little
      even auto cad

      However, the result!
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      volumes occupied by modern weapons

      Wow, the deck deck UVP requires more volumes than five rotating towers with large-caliber guns
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      given the volume occupied by modern weapons complex electronic means

      So big that S-300 complex is placed on a mobile chassis. Compactness. Mobile based!

      For comparison - an 18-wheeled truck with a trailer on the background of the cruiser


      Quote: Fotoceva62
      Try to protect the armored ship in the photo, not really.

      of course unrealistic, its layout did not initially involve the installation of protection

      + Technology 40 years ago. The weapon is in the open, on the deck. A set of bulky highly specialized radars, computers and equipment of military posts of the last century
      1. Fotoceva62
        Fotoceva62 12 February 2016 11: 54
        +8
        You distort, the below-deck cells are covered with anti-fragmentation armor, but they are still placed above the waterline and are vulnerable. Regarding towers, barbets, etc., the cellar is much lower than the KVL. Ships are now being built according to other principles and there will be no more landfills of the Jutland type. I know the ship in the previous photo not very badly and I would like to know what kind of technology "technology 40 years ago" is fundamentally different from modern ones?
        I also did not have an auto cad, the good old Kuhlmann, re-chair, calculator and a log line, however, the project of the vessel at one time completed.
        It is desirable to argue well versed in the matter. Well, on paper you can draw any kind of armor. Case for small, bring to life.
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 16
          -4
          Quote: Fotoceva62
          the below deck cells are covered with anti-shatter armor

          What prevents to cover them with a sliding 100 mm plate
          Quote: Fotoceva62
          but they are still placed above the waterline

          The main thing is not higher than the upper deck
          Quote: Fotoceva62
          Regarding towers, barbets, etc., the cellar is much lower than the KVL

          empty volumes reserved for storage b / p

          tower and barbets - hundreds of tons, above the upper deck.
          three-gun armored tower of the cruiser Brooklyn (there were five in total)
          guess how much she weighed. and how did it affect stability

          Quote: Fotoceva62
          I know the ship in the previous photo not very badly and I would like to know what kind of technology "technology 40 years ago" is fundamentally different from modern ones?

          all radar
          Semi-active air defense missile systems - i.e. the need for backlight radars
          launchers on the upper deck

          it's all gone now
      2. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 12 February 2016 12: 22
        +3
        stupid paddling pools after 10 years were written off as a "morally obsolete" ship, which was ahead of time by a good hundred years !!!

        question: was the ship morally obsolete or physically? in one sentence combined "obsolete" and "wear and tear"?

        Quote: BENNERT


        So large that the S-300 complex fits on a mobile chassis. Mobile based!

        For comparison - an 18-wheeled truck with a trailer on the background of the cruiser


        Have you seen the ENTIRE complex s-300? not only the launch tubes, but also the rest of the machines?

        Tell me, what is this cruiser?
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 34
          0
          Quote: DrVintorez
          Have you seen the ENTIRE complex s-300? not only the launch tubes, but also the rest of the machines?

          pair of eight-axle chassis

          S-300 is so huge that it was possible to install on a mobile chassis
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 12 February 2016 12: 46
            +5
            1. What do you have for the cruiser in the photo?

            2. a pair of eight-axle chassis is five. no! that's SIX! I beg you, before you write something, take an interest in the topic at least a little. for example, how many cars (or "eight-axle chassis") are included in the s-300. and you don't just have to answer that you can do with two - PU and KP.
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 51
              -4
              Quote: DrVintorez
              for example, how many vehicles (or "eight-axle chassis") are included in the s-300.

              and how much

              and how they look on the background of the cruiser, in one scale
              Quote: DrVintorez
              1. What do you have for the cruiser in the photo?

              Ticonderoga, 9600 tons
              1983 technology and antennas
              Quote: DrVintorez
              that you can do two - PU and KP.

              PU has nothing to do with it, missiles are in the UVP cells, in place of the main caliber guns and towers

              we are talking about equipping posts and antennas
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 12 February 2016 12: 59
                +4
                Quote: BENNERT

                and how much

                actually I asked you.

                Well, google for now - at the same time look at what the position of the ЗРК-300/400 division in google map looks like. and compare with the cruiser =)

                Quote: BENNERT

                PU with nothing, missiles are in the cells of the UVP, in place of the main-caliber towers

                we are talking about equipping posts and antennas


                we are talking about compactness, since you give an "eight-axle chassis" as an indicator of compactness, then count how many of these chassis. taking into account ALL components: several launchers (amazing, but they are also UVP!), CP, low-altitude detector ...
            2. velikoros-xnumx
              velikoros-xnumx 12 February 2016 13: 02
              +3
              Quote: DrVintorez
              you don’t only have to answer that two can be dispensed with - PU and KP.

              If not a secret, what else is needed?
              - Radars on ships have their own, not one and different ranges.
              - Charging machines carrying extra ammunition?
              - the command post can and should be integrated into the ship's CIUS
              There are only launchers (in the modern vision of the UVP cell) and additional ammunition (???) if it is of course needed.
              The "Triumph" air defense missile system includes:

              30K6E controls:
              combat control point 55К6Е;
              Radar detection 91H6Е.
              98Ж6Е anti-aircraft missile systems (up to 6 units) consisting of:
              Multifunctional control radar 92Н2Е;
              Launchers 5P85TE2 and / or 5P85XE2 (up to 12 pcs.)
              Anti-aircraft missiles 48N6E, 48N6E2, 48N6E3 existing of S - 300PM - 1, - 2, as well as missiles and 9M96E 9M96E2 (see photo.) And extra high-range missile 40N6E.
              Optionally attached funds:
              96L6Е high-altitude radar;
              mobile tower 40В6М for antenna post 92Н6Е.


              Which of the following must be present on the ship for the system to work and what is already there anyway.
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 12 February 2016 13: 11
                +3
                Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                Radars on ships have their own, not one and different ranges.

                brrrrr. how are you? All the radars (and other antennas, forgive me the professionals) of the ship is exactly what is "made up" of the need to ensure everything that is on board. Why would a ship without an S-300 air defense system carry extra tons of equipment? accordingly, if we are talking about comparing the "compactness" of the "eight-axle chassis" and the cruiser, then we must take into account ALL the equipment that ensures the operation of the air defense system. and, by the way, not only equipment, but also people must be accommodated.
              2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. 4news
      4news 12 February 2016 19: 55
      0
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      The non-cemented steel-nickel armor was used (a novelty at that time).

      Quote: Fotoceva62
      Thin 30 mm deck of "extra soft" armor

      There is a contradiction in these two phrases. The fact is that super-soft nickel armor (extra-soft steel-nickel armor, non-cemented chromium-nickel armor) is the next type (as it is mastered) of armor, after nickel armor (Schneider-Creusot type II armor, French armor, steel-nickel armor, nickel steel). If steel-nickel armor was a novelty, then where did the nickel-chromium deck armor come from, which was invented later than it?
  • db1967
    db1967 12 February 2016 09: 21
    +5
    Such a bunch of blunders that it seems that even the author was too lazy to look into the wiki am
  • GRAY
    GRAY 12 February 2016 09: 51
    +5
    A modern ship is capable of performing most tasks without radar. All “Harpoons” and “Gauges” are induced EXCLUSIVELY according to external target designation.

    For this, there are submarines, they are just external target designation and are used when they throw rifle cruise missiles.
    It makes no sense to build an armored trough that will do the same.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 12 February 2016 14: 37
      +1
      The funny thing is that the Americans were also stupid, they do not understand Oleg. They designed the arsenal ship (the author cited the picture), designed it using these principles, and then they took and abandoned this project. Well, whoa ...
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 12 February 2016 09: 51
    +1
    Maybe it's already worth organizing a vote? At least for the sake of interest, count the adherents and opponents of armor on modern ships.
    1. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 12 February 2016 13: 31
      0
      Quote: RPG_
      Maybe it's already worth organizing a vote? At least for the sake of interest, count the adherents and opponents of armor on modern ships.

      Interesting idea. Can organize a survey?
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 12 February 2016 14: 45
      +2
      And what to vote then. There is armor on modern cloables; and on the "Kuz" (by the way composite) there is also on "Petra". When there is an opportunity and need - they put it, when not - they get by with other means.
  • PPD
    PPD 12 February 2016 09: 55
    +3
    100mm armor is cool! laughing There is no main belt at all!
    But most importantly, booked by a similar principle, but much more reasonable lk type Sevastopol-
    it sucks, and to smear thin armor along the entire length, which is the same for important units and at the extremities, is the top of the constructive solution. fool
    Is nationality affected? Would Sevastopol in France also be considered a masterpiece?
    By the way, a little earlier, the author argued that booking the nasal extremities is unnecessary. Like nobody drowned from this.
    It seems it's time to decide on the position. One article is another in another.
    Already forget what we are writing. And so is scribble for the sake of scribble!
  • DM51
    DM51 12 February 2016 09: 59
    +9
    Our Kaptsov is an armored trophy of the 3rd degree. I don’t understand what he is trying to prove, does Oleg really think that he will reach the designers with his articles and they will crowd him for advice on how to build a super-unsinkable armored fleet or just want moral satisfaction when start to agree with him?
    That is, as I understand from the article, he wants to build a super ship without guidance systems that is completely dependent on escort ships without armor, but with powerful radars and when the escorts are spread by the same Harpoons and Ecozets, this battleship will become a great useless expensive junk with missiles, but not capable of it apply, that is, alone in the theater of war he has nothing to do - he needs an escort, bravo, Oleg! And yet, for some reason Kaptsov is persistently writing about the Harpoons and other low-powered anti-ship missiles in the fight against armored vehicles, but he really doesn’t think that will everyone be quietly sitting on the train ... even and heavy heavy anti-ship missiles with much higher characteristics than missiles of the 70s will not be put into operation? Moreover, faster than the appearance of an armored fleet, since such a ship still needs to be designed and built, and this is years 7 I think, during this time, you can come up with and make an excellent heavy anti-ship missile, but all the same, rockets with hypersound will appear earlier and what then to do with the battleship?
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 12 February 2016 11: 02
      +3
      Quote: DM51
      this battleship will be a great useless expensive junk with missiles, but not able to use it

      1. None of this is a battleship
      maximum - highly protected destroyer

      2. He can use weapons even when damaged. with completely destroyed radar

      3. Finally, he has a chance to survive after the battle, saving billions and time to build a new destroyer
      1. adept666
        adept666 12 February 2016 12: 03
        +2

        1. None of this is a battleship
        maximum - highly protected destroyer

        2. He can use weapons even when damaged. with completely destroyed radar

        3. Finally, he has a chance to survive after the battle, saving billions and time to build a new destroyer


        4. Save the crew (most of it)

        5. An indestructible ship will greatly strain the enemy psychologically.

        6. The concept of a massive strike with light RCC will die at the very moment when such a battleship appears, and this is the key bet of a probable enemy in a future war at sea.
      2. DM51
        DM51 12 February 2016 12: 27
        +1
        1. None of this is a battleship
        maximum - highly protected destroyer

        2. He can use weapons even when damaged. with completely destroyed radar

        3. Finally, he has a chance to survive after the battle, saving billions and time to build a new destroyer [/ quote]
        It’s clear that it’s not a battleship, but you wouldn’t have ended up with a battleship with 350mm. Armor, this is your dream, would you?
        If you yourself contradict yourself, then you have an unarmored Zamvolt theoretically alone can withstand the whole fleet, and an armored destroyer, like an aircraft carrier, needs an escort to effectively complete the task. For the cost of this miracle, you can put into operation a couple of excellent Arly Burke
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 38
          0
          Quote: DM51
          but you wouldn’t be from a battleship with 350mm. Armor, this is your dream, would you?

          Find at least one article claiming this

          Written in black and white - protected destroyer
          Quote: DM51
          unarmored Zamvolt theoretically can alone stand up to the whole fleet

          It depends on which fleet
          if like the Black Sea - then easily
          Quote: DM51
          and an armored destroyer, like an aircraft carrier, needs an escort to effectively complete the task.

          answer - why?
          Quote: DM51
          For the cost of this miracle, you can put into operation a couple of excellent Arly Burke

          15% more expensive than Burke
          combat value is not comparable
          1. DM51
            DM51 12 February 2016 13: 02
            +6
            Is it like Zamvolt can withstand a Black Sea Fleet without a well-developed air defense system on board? Yes, he himself needs an escort from Arly Burke
            An escort, judging by your article, is needed to highlight targets. "With the development of anti-aircraft missiles with active seeker that do not require external illumination, it became possible to shoot missiles on homing, according to data from other ships or the radar of an airborne helicopter. and guidance of anti-aircraft missiles was originally incorporated in modern AWACS aircraft (E-2 mod. D) or F-35 fighters ". That is, to protect itself from the air, it requires external sources of illumination
            And how did you calculate its combat effectiveness, taking into account the heavy anti-ship missiles and rockets that I am sure will appear earlier than this super-destroyer?
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 12 February 2016 16: 02
            +4
            Quote: BENNERT
            It depends on which fleet
            if like the Black Sea - then easily

            It hurts a bold statement, could you briefly simulate how he alone will resist, it is very interesting to know.
            1. DM51
              DM51 12 February 2016 16: 49
              +6
              According to Oleg Kaptsov, one Zwolt is enough to sink the entire Black Sea Fleet, one F35 is to gain air superiority over the Crimea, well, a couple of Abramsovs for a successful land operation in Crimea and the return of the peninsula to Ukraine, and then the entire US armored fleet will be based there laughing
            2. igorka357
              igorka357 13 February 2016 07: 03
              +1
              Comrade Bennert, a partner from the United States, simply does not imagine the total salvo of even such a weak fleet as the Black Sea ..)), even if it is theoretically assumed that not a single projectile and rocket will penetrate the plywood lock, but simply stick to it, even in this case everything that is inside it will fly and put it to the bottom of the bottom ..)))
        2. adept666
          adept666 12 February 2016 13: 01
          -1
          an armored destroyer, like an aircraft carrier needs an escort to effectively complete the task
          Any ship in an endangered period or during a database needs a warrant for efficient operation and it doesn’t matter if it’s a frigate or a destroyer / cruiser / aircraft carrier. Alone, he is just a bunch of floating expensive iron.
          For the cost of this miracle, you can put into operation a couple of excellent Arly Burke
          The average cost of Arly at current prices swims for 1,5 billion evergreens (or even swims to 2 ... ~ 1,7 billion), i.e. for 2 units ~ $ 3,5 billion. Let's say our battleship has such a price for a unit (and that is not a fact). Arli when hit by ANY RCC dies immediately, in order to undermine him if he is alone in the sea, it is necessary from 3 to 5 RCCs of the X-35 / Harpoon type. An average of 4 per volley (cost from $ 800 thousand to 1,2 million for one RCC). And then this is still a very pitchfork on the water, since no one shot down the simultaneous attack of 3 anti-ship missiles even in subsonic ones. If the means of active defense (ABM) of an armadillo will be equal to that of Arly, then it turns out that on average it is necessary to dump him from 8 to 12 anti-ship missiles of the same class, because he will be able to take 2-3 missiles with his body without losing combat capabilities (but here too he has a reserve because he can still have time to shoot at an enemy carrier, reducing the intensity of his own shelling (the enemy will need to do something against his battleship’s counter-attacking means) or even expel him (the enemy is destroyed)). Arly is an excellent ship for shelling ground targets, as part of an order from ships like 2 to 8 it is a good anti-missile defense system, but alone it is just a whipping boy. Therefore, there are more than 60 of them in the US Navy and it is not yet known how they will show themselves against the enemy with modern anti-ship means.
          1. DM51
            DM51 12 February 2016 16: 06
            +4
            Arly is a lot in the US Navy, because the destroyer is now the main and universal combat unit of the fleet, of course the USA, as a great sea power, should have a lot of them.
            You make the same mistake as Kaptsov - no one will sit idly by while the armored destroyer is being built and bullet with Harpoons or x35, heavy modern supersonic anti-ship missiles will appear much faster - there are just two of them for any super destroyer, but it seems to me that the hypersound on missiles will appear even earlier and then the armor will again prove useless. I am not against ballistic reservations, but not solid armor and I believe that the future is for electronic warfare and interception means. This is just my opinion, I do not impose it on anyone.
            Moreover, no matter how we argue here and no matter what arguments, no one will build an armored fleet
            1. igorka357
              igorka357 13 February 2016 07: 09
              0
              Since when did the USA become a great sea power? Did they call it that? They may have won the United States of 300 years old and won many sea battles, can’t you name just one great? Well, the British and the French are fine, but the Americans ... excuse me!
            2. adept666
              adept666 13 February 2016 13: 07
              +1
              the destroyer is now the main and universal fleet unit
              Before the advent of the AGM-158C (except for the first Arly mods with harpoons and until 2000 when it was TASM), Arly had no anti-ship weapons at all. What versatility are we talking about? Yes, and they still can’t really bring it, even in 2018 they plan to adopt it (i.e., after 9 years of development, despite the fact that subsonic anti-ship missiles in the USA are not at all new, they have been working with them for more than 50 years). Now imagine how long it takes to make a supersonic anti-ship missile system of vertical launch (and even heavy) and bring it to mind, then remake UVP on almost 100 ships under it ... It's easier to build new ones.
              You make the same mistake as Kaptsov - no one will sit back while the armored destroyer is being built and bullet into it with Harpoons ... heavy modern supersonic anti-ship missiles will appear much faster
              Well, suppose they appear, and in which UVP will they be equipped? It is necessary that the entire fleet will be redone under the new UVP and still need to be shoved somehow.
              but it seems to me that hypersound on missiles will appear even earlier
              It may seem to you, but hypersound on the anti-ship missiles will not appear very soon and there are natural physical limitations, one radio-transparent fairing for such a missile is already a problem. A controlled flight on 5MAX along the profile on NVD is generally from the field of technology of the late 21st century.
              I do not mind splinterproof booking
              There is absolutely no sense in splinterproof booking (except for the cost and excess weight, for example, on Arly, almost 130 tons of weight is Kevlar). What fragments to protect from?
              what the future is for electronic warfare and interception. This is just my opinion, I do not impose it on anyone.
              They are now very efficient, but for some reason they put Daggers, Volcanoes and other means of defense of the last frontier.
              Moreover, no matter how we argue here and no matter what arguments, no one will build an armored fleet
              Probably yes.
          2. igorka357
            igorka357 13 February 2016 07: 07
            0
            And here I don’t agree with you, remember the raiders of the German Navy, there were certainly not successful operations, but there was success .. read about Scharnhorst and Gneisenau ..! And Tirpitz didn’t climb almost from the bases, but the Brit mumbled mum do not grieve until he was filled up after all ..)))!
            1. adept666
              adept666 13 February 2016 13: 17
              0
              And here I do not agree with you, remember the German raiders
              Do not agree with me? In the sense that any ship needs a warrant?
              But Tirpitz didn’t get out of the bases almost at all, but the mom didn’t worry about shaving Britons until he was filled up ..)))!
              Approximately the same battleship Kaptsova will scamper the US cardboard fleet, although it is equipped with modern RTS and weapons. It’s like in boxing two punchers with the same impact force, but one does not have a piercing chin, and the other has plywood. Who else else will be the winner in exchange? In my opinion, this is obvious - the one who is better able to hold the blow and also the blow for the latter would be stronger so far ... Onyx has not been canceled ...
    2. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 12 February 2016 13: 27
      +2
      Quote: DM51
      I don’t understand what he’s trying to prove.

      I think that in the domestic shipbuilding industry it is worth revising the approach to ship security a little. Naturally, taking into account modern technologies and the achievements of materials science (protection, as I understand it, not necessarily armor plates with a thickness of 10, 20 ... cm from armored steel). It can be various composites, ceramics, etc., where it may be necessary and armor steel.
      Considering the speed with which our shipyards build warships of the frigate's dimension, not to mention the destroyers and cruisers (which modern Russia, not counting Peter the Great, and even then the completion of the Soviet groundwork) did not build a single one. And then, how much do decent ships of this class cost now, as well as how quickly they can be lost ???
      In the context of the adoption of the program for the design and construction of destroyers of the "Leader" type, I would like to avoid many mistakes. That, God forbid, it was not bitter. Then it will be too late to bite your elbows, and in the conditions of a large-scale war there will simply not be time to build new ones.
  • unknown
    unknown 12 February 2016 10: 02
    -1
    At that time, 100 mm armor and a fully armored board, against high-explosive shells (for example, in Tsushima) just right.

    And modern ships of large displacement would not have been harmed by the crank armored deck.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 12 February 2016 10: 04
    -1
    This makes no sense....
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 12 February 2016 10: 06
    +2
    I thought it was a normal article .... I forgot to look at the author first ... Kaptsov, of course ... How could anyone doubt his ability ... Govnostatya!
  • maxes
    maxes 12 February 2016 10: 10
    +5
    Now will begin objections about the lack of horizontal protection. The only 30-mm armor deck “de Loma” was held deep in the hull, below the level of the overhead line.
    The creators of the cruiser simply did not see the special need to install a system of armored decks.


    This was not necessary when shelling a ship with artillery shells that had a fixed flight path and when touching the deck there was a great chance of a rebound. The missile will not ricochet and will break through these 30 mm like paper. So there are two options: 1-book the entire deck with 100 mm armor (or thicker); 2-scrape prayers on the deck so that the rockets hit only on board.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 12 February 2016 10: 57
      -3
      Quote: Maxar
      So there are two options: 1 - book the entire deck with 100 mm armor (or thicker)

      Yes
  • engineer74
    engineer74 12 February 2016 10: 30
    +9
    I propose a budget version of Mr. Kaptsov's "Dream Ship": the thickness of the side of a strong submarine hull is 50-70 mm, we take 941 "Shark", we throw out the silo, we cook the missing 30-50 mm of modern armor (it is possible with the remote control), we put the air defense system, UVP at 50- 80 "Calibers", we hang AFAR on the wheelhouse, don't dive under water! No stability issues, plus stealth due to the low silhouette!
    Alteration at the expense of the author ... wassat
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 12 February 2016 10: 59
      0
      Very good idea

      nothing needs to be redone, this is a concept project for a new generation destroyer
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 12 February 2016 11: 15
        +2
        Actually, I meant that the integration of "armor" into the hull power set has been used on submarines for a long time, which could be mentioned in the article. Projects of semi-submerged ships also periodically pop up, but for some reason it does not go beyond the pictures ...
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 12 February 2016 12: 19
          0
          Quote: engineer74
          that the integration of "armor" into the power set of the hull has been used on submarines for a long time

          The submarine is too specific a class, a solid body of revolution - with a minimum number of holes in a sturdy case.

          and they have set elements providing stiffness
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 12 February 2016 16: 29
        +2
        Quote: BENNERT
        nothing needs to be redone, this is a concept project for a new generation destroyer

        Quote: engineer74
        we take 941 "Shark", throw out silos, cook the missing 30-50 mm of modern armor (it is possible from the remote control), put the air defense missile system, UVP on 50-80 "calibers", hang on the AFAR wheelhouse

        Here in the photo of the nuclear submarine pr.941 without a light hull, sarcasm is incomprehensible.
      3. Ka-52
        Ka-52 12 February 2016 17: 35
        +4
        IMHO. This is not criticism, trying to enable logic wink

        There is a marine naval artillery gun - 460-mm Type 94 gun, was in service with battleships of the Yamato type.
        Year of development: 1934-39
        He was armed with a Type 91 Armor-piercing projectile.
        The mass of the Type 91 projectile was 1460 kg, the explosive content of trinitroanisole was about 22 kg. Initial projectile speed: 780-805 m / s
        Maximum shooting range - 42,3 km

        And there is the Wing RCC P-700 Granite (3M-45) Year of development: 1983.
        The mass of the rocket is 7 tons, the speed is 825 m / s, the weight of the high-explosive warhead is 750 kg.
        The maximum range is 600 km.

        That is, logically: the kinetic energy of the projectile decreases with distance and its breakdown power, too, suppose we have cardboard sides and the projectile pierced them at a distance of 42 km and exploded. Now comparable to a rocket. Let it be launched at a distance of 300 km and at a distance of 150 km it met with a target, let about 2 tons fly from the total mass to the target, while the kinetic energy of the rocket to penetrate the target does not decrease, and the high-explosive warhead will do much more damage than the projectile .
        IMHO: strengthening the hull and protection against small-caliber guns and small-caliber cannons, as well as anti-ship missiles with a small high-explosive part, is effective only for small ships, such as river-sea and those that come close to the coast, amphibious transport, where shelling from guns is most likely and portable systems, and for large ships of the ocean and sea zones "armor" is not relevant, since no armor can withstand the means for drowning them, at least at the current level of development of metallurgy. Therefore, it is not economically profitable to spend on it.
        Somehow hi
    2. novel66
      novel66 12 February 2016 10: 59
      +9
      I would add - for unsinkability, foam internal volumes with foam
      1. Avenich
        Avenich 12 February 2016 11: 43
        +4
        Quote: novel xnumx
        for unsinkability, foam internal volumes with foam

        It is more correct to fill condoms with inflated hydrogen.
        In the virtual universe of science fiction writer Kaptsov’s science fiction, the earthly laws of physics do not work, so there’s a chance that this device will rise if necessary the upper layers of the atmosphere and with the help of an omnipotent headlight will be able to consider beach beauties on the beaches of the warm Arctic Ocean.
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 12 February 2016 12: 40
          +1
          why hydrogen ??? after all! better immediately something vigorous. such as VX or sarin, so that if they pierce the armor, then at least ring before death.
      2. Fotoceva62
        Fotoceva62 12 February 2016 12: 02
        +7
        A similar system has already been used in the PTZ system of the Jean Bar and Dunkirk ships ... large external compartments, in which most of the explosion energy should be absorbed, should be filled with a viscous rubber-like substance called Ebonite Mousse, which is a dense rubber foam [ 40]. This substance had a specific gravity of 0,07-0,1 g / cm³, did not absorb sea water even at high pressure, and could also absorb part of the explosion energy. The French hoped that using the Ebonite Mousse would reduce the risk of asymmetric flooding of the compartments. The experiments with underwater explosions, conducted in May 1934 in the Lorient area with a model on a 1: 4 scale, generally confirmed the calculations and test results ...
      3. avt
        avt 12 February 2016 16: 59
        +2
        Quote: novel xnumx
        I would add - for unsinkability, foam internal volumes with foam

        Quote: Avenich
        It is more correct to fill condoms with inflated hydrogen.

        In vain you are joking, during it in 1965 they have the destroyer "Knox" and so they replaced the water from the flooded compartments with foam, at first they wanted to fill the compartment with polystyrene balls, but it turned out with foam, and they removed it, towed it, and put it into operation after repairing it.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 February 2016 13: 09
      +1
      In the days of it SW. FVL offered an even more radical concept - a supertanker-based warship.
      And the concept of a spaced reservation of 70 + 100 mm, which protects against any existing anti-ship missiles.
  • 89067359490
    89067359490 12 February 2016 10: 40
    +4
    Just started to read the article I already realized who wrote and about what. wink
    Still, respect for Oleg for the cruiser.
  • cergey51046
    cergey51046 12 February 2016 10: 48
    0
    Even if it’s impossible, but really want it, then it’s possible.
  • Operator
    Operator 12 February 2016 11: 04
    +6
    Over-the-horizon guidance of ship missiles by external target designation - to whom?

    If, according to the target designation of another ship, located on the perimeter of the AUG in the direction of the RCC approach, this other ship will naturally be the first to catch its RCC and the external target designation will disappear.

    If, according to the target designation of the deck-mounted helicopter / AWACS aircraft, then for this case there is an explosive EMR generator in dimensions of 450-kg warhead, which can be installed on board the cruise missile electronic warfare to disable the aircraft radar (not to mention the EMP from a nuclear warhead explosion, which will disable all AUG radars in general).

    In the RCC competition, the last ship will always be a loser, since the first is a thousand times cheaper and, accordingly, can be produced in a huge number of copies with a variety of warheads, RPs, penetrating, armor-piercing, cumulative, radar, electronic warfare, nuclear, etc.
    In the missile salvo for the ship’s formation, that set of missiles that matches the types of protection used for the formation will be presented.
    1. adept666
      adept666 12 February 2016 11: 54
      0
      Over-the-horizon guidance of ship missiles by external target designation - to whom?
      Well, actually the author is right, the ship will be able to shoot at targets at a maximum range of 30-40 km on their own, and even in the most favorable conditions.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 12 February 2016 11: 08
    +7
    Dear colleagues on the naval topic! I believe that Mr. Kaptsov deliberately writes these articles about booking ships with the sole purpose of dragging as many more people to the forum for advertising purposes in the interests of the beneficiaries. Like bait on a hook from an angler. In this sense, the site is pretty "shredded". Well, business, nothing personal. I will be very surprised if my comment is not deleted or my account is not banned at all. But I won't lose anything from this. All articles on this site are found elsewhere on the Internet. But this is for the moderators.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 12 February 2016 13: 31
      +2
      Mr. Kaptsov throws in the fan. His right.
    2. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 12 February 2016 13: 42
      +6
      Quote: okroshka79
      All articles on this site are in other places on the Internet.

      Moreover, on other resources the same information appears earlier. Authors articles, despite statements by the administration, are not very welcome. At least not all authors.
      Tried to publish three times. Each time to no avail. The reason for the refusal was "a large number of spelling and punctuation errors." In my spare time I will give the article to the proofreader for checking. I will post the results of the check in the comments. Fundamentally.
      I have been reading VO since 2012, registered in 2013. In my subjective opinion, the number of publications has increased many times since then. Unfortunately, this did not contribute to the improvement of their quality. And according to the comments, it was sadder than everyone was interested in. Often, from the comments of useful information, I received more than from the main article. Of course we can say what does the administration have to do with it? We write the comments ourselves, though.
      Sorry for the flood and off-topic letters. Just a little sorry. The site has become "more solid". We conduct surveys to improve it, but on the face (at least the "old" users can see it) there is a kind of extinction or something.
      1. Fornit
        Fornit 7 December 2016 11: 13
        +1
        Until you learn how to write the word "quantity" with one "l" - the article will not be accepted ...
  • Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 12 February 2016 11: 46
    +2
    Srach decided to continue? fellow
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 12 February 2016 13: 41
      +2
      Yes. It was evening, there was nothing to do ... (c) fellow
  • Pimply
    Pimply 12 February 2016 12: 14
    +1
    Oleg, what's the point?
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 12 February 2016 12: 56
    +4
    Quote: Operator
    Over-the-horizon guidance of ship missiles by external target designation - to whom?



    I agree with you. I also want to understand, if we are talking about an arsenal ship, then what is the point of booking it? Its combat effectiveness can be reduced to zero by destroying its "periphery". AWACS planes will shoot down in the first place always and that's it. There will be no Avaks in the sky in the event of a war, they can only tolerate this rubbish over their heads.

    Battleships and battleships of that era are "first line" ships, not rear arsenals. They were at a "pistol shot" distance from each other, the ratio of the speed of the projectile and their own mobility made them virtually static or sedentary targets.

    When the strike ship was able to move away from the "first line", he immediately lost its armor. This is an aircraft carrier, if that. So what's the point of rolling the rear rat into the armor? His combat effectiveness depends on the integrity of the corps in the last place, the "periphery" is much more important to him.


    Another question is to book first line ships. Making a highly protected fighter ship to operate in close proximity to the enemy's order is, as it were, a different matter. But here there will be no time for the "periphery" here we need autonomous independent combat units.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 12 February 2016 13: 09
    +4
    You can already write "Bible for armored worshipers" ... ;-)
    But what for?

    "The pony runs in a circle and counts circles in his mind" (c)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 February 2016 14: 08
      +3
      The epic legends "The Song of Coaming", "The Song of the Turret Box" and "The Legend of Smooth Ride" convey to us, albeit in a somewhat tedious form, a majestic picture of colossal battles from scratch.
      (c) Koshkin
      Well, the classic conclusion of such a dispute:
      Sir Zampotech declares that his victory is unconditional and, without paying attention to the protesting screams of Sir Znayka, leaves the Shroud. Spectators, somewhat puzzled, are trying to remember what caused the fight.

      smile
  • DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 12 February 2016 13: 19
    +1
    will gobble up "zamvolt" (even with armor, even without) two or three torpedoes, and a drowning. I remember there was an article / discussion about the destroyer's half-billion BC. how much is the "zamvolt"? how to cope with such a loss?
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 12 February 2016 13: 30
    +5
    A modern ship is capable of performing most tasks without radar.

    A boatswain with binoculars is all that is needed. :)
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 12 February 2016 13: 31
      +2
      acoustics forgot!
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 12 February 2016 13: 32
        0
        Acoustics - Gus, throw it away. Moreover, under GAS it is necessary to design the contours of the body ...
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 12 February 2016 13: 46
          +2
          a phonendoscope in his ears and let him sit in the hold!
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 February 2016 14: 11
          +1
          Quote: Andrey77
          Acoustics - Gus, throw it away. Moreover, under GAS it is necessary to design the contours of the body ...

          And let the entire underwater part of the hull be conformal FAS GAS! smile
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 12 February 2016 14: 34
            +2
            And oars, oars, do not forget ... They can not only be rowed, but also waved off the enemy if that ... Damn why stupid admirals abandoned the backup row move ... After all, the brig Mercury using the oars fought off two Turkish battleships! wassat
            1. Delta
              Delta 12 February 2016 15: 30
              +2
              Quote: Taoist
              And oars, oars do not forget ... They can not only be rowed, but also waved off the enemy if that ... Damn why stupid admirals abandoned the reserve oars move


              and the oars must be armored
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 12 February 2016 15: 40
                +3
                Quote: Delta
                and the oars must be armored

                does not count! the battleships were unarmored! Now, if there was 100mm armor over the entire area of ​​Turkish battleships, then light oars would not bring "Mercury" success even if used simultaneously! and if you are thinking about seven-ton supersonic oars - then indicate the carriers !!! and in general - armor-piercing, supersonic oars are exotic, they are old, there are few of them, they were all produced for a long time!
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 12 February 2016 17: 41
                  +1
                  Quote: DrVintorez
                  does not count! the battleships were unarmored! Now, if there was 100mm armor over the entire area of ​​Turkish battleships, then light oars would not bring "Mercury" success even if used simultaneously! and if you are thinking about seven-ton supersonic oars - then indicate the carriers !!! and in general - armor-piercing, supersonic oars are exotic, they are old, there are few of them, they were all produced for a long time!

                  Uhhh ... it smelled directly of the spirit of the alternative history forum. smile
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 12 February 2016 20: 49
                    +1
                    Can you imagine an apocalyptic alternative picture of the battle of the rowing battleships? I just have goosebumps the size of a dog running ... It's cooler than any "Black Ship" ...
                    Just the other day, Fedya Berezin congratulated DR on ... bully
  • Cartalon
    Cartalon 12 February 2016 13: 52
    +3
    Reservation ships are needed for a battle with an equal but rather superior opponent, let us recall Tirpitz, and now no one is going to fight with equal level in principle, everyone wants to hunt turkeys.
  • Voice of the Mind
    Voice of the Mind 12 February 2016 13: 53
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    Rubin is building submarines.

    Following the logic of the author .. what is bad all-armored submarine? wink
  • PKK
    PKK 12 February 2016 14: 26
    +2
    In a real war, they will shoot at him with consecutive nuclear strikes that disable all electronics, automation, and defeat the sailors with shell shocks about the bulkheads.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • spech
    spech 12 February 2016 16: 07
    +2
    October 24 2014 of the year during the exercise was successfully carried out with the help of SM-6 rockets a massive attack of low-flying subsonic and supersonic targets simulating the corresponding anti-ship missiles. The successful interception of the GQM-163A supersonic training target (corresponding in characteristics and flight profile to the Mosquito P-270 rocket and the BQM-74 subsonic training target) was performed. Both targets were intercepted during the flight at ultra-low altitude with over-the-horizon launches of the SM-6.

    Massive plaque is 2! rockets, sorry Oleg is stupid as much pipitz!
  • Taoist
    Taoist 12 February 2016 16: 12
    +4
    And you armor armor ... tongue
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 February 2016 17: 45
      +1
      Anime. It captivated ... laughing

      By the way, the fog ships have armor - from nanomaterials. And another Klein field. smile

      And in general - nafig-nafig these ships, which have their own personal opinions on each issue and regularly, with special cynicism, violate orders.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 12 February 2016 18: 05
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Anime. It captivated ...

        Well, after all, it's not Kaptsov's "hentai" ...
        Look, even cartoonists understand that if armor is revived then only on new physical principles.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 February 2016 18: 25
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          Look, even cartoonists understand that if armor is revived then only on new physical principles.

          Well why. SDF-1, for example, at first calmly managed with traditional armor protection. It was only later that the eggheads invented a manually controlled point-defense shield - when three operators managed to manually drive the point-defense discs all over the hull with trackballs to the places of missile attacks and the rays of enemy weapons. belay
          And I still don’t remember about Uchuu Senkan Yamato.

          PS Schaz we will press moderators on our heads. Or even worse - call gnezdiloff. laughing
  • Slippery
    Slippery 12 February 2016 16: 29
    +1
    Quote: PKK
    Finally, a satellite phone in each officer’s pocket.

    And does the navigator have Yandex maps on a satellite tablet?
    Quote: PKK
    A damaged but not surrendered destroyer can still be used as a floating arsenal. You must agree that it is much better to have in your order an extra fifty missiles and other weapons than a pile of burnt debris on the ocean floor.
    Finally, nothing puts him to discharge his ammunition to the end, covering the enemy with a flock of “Calibrov”.

    So take it and shoot everything? Not very clear . Is it proposed to get a couple of three missile systems in the side, performing vigorous anti-missile maneuvers, fighting for survivability, and also perform a visual and instrumental check of the launch silos? Or with the words "yes, go it all with a horse" to make the launch, maybe it will not explode in the mine? In order not to surrender, you must make sure that you will not ruin yourself, and this takes time, which in modern combat is very scarce.
    Quote: PKK
    13 boilers and three steam engines hardly produced the entire 13 ths. Hp For comparison: the typical destroyer of our time has on the shafts to 100 000 hp

    A modern destroyer consumes electric power in tens of megawatts, not only on the move, but also on all personal items in the form of radars, automation, etc. and this is a very large power take-off. Although if hovering over the phone ...
  • CSI
    CSI 12 February 2016 16: 55
    +2
    probably a dumb question, but still, what is this trough ??? what
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 12 February 2016 18: 17
      +3
      This trough suggests doing O. Kaptsov. In his Universe it is ... mmm ... kapets, I can’t find words to describe ... what This is a SUPER DEFENSE Destroyer! Why not a cruiser, why not a battleship? request After all, he must conduct many hours of fighting, and when the ammunition ends, remain on the battlefield and continue to fight thanks to his armor. soldier But he should not drown, because he is super and he is protected by armor. And all around are dumb, because they do not understand that ships must necessarily conduct such long battles, otherwise the presence of armor will be an extra ballast. And their crews should be a little dull, so as not to sometimes shoot down enemy missiles, which must fall into the armor, in order to prove that only the armor will save the ships. winked .
      So, this should look like a modern ship in the version of Oleg Kaptsov.
      Here the American "Zamvolt" already looks like this, only much higher and without armor ... Apparently, this concept is a repetition of the American analog what
      HERE !!! Now I know for sure which photo hangs on Kaptsov's wall - this is a photo of "Zamvolt" and there are two icon lamps on the sides ...
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 12 February 2016 18: 25
      +1
      The American project of the arsenal ship. Roughly what Kaptsov wants. Unfortunately request rejected by their creators.
    3. Munchhausen
      Munchhausen 12 February 2016 21: 07
      0
      This platform is called Arsenal. The project did not take place (American), it was meant as a carrier of 500 Tomahawks. The goal is to unmask the platform, not the more expensive Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. There was an article recently on this site.
      1. CSI
        CSI 13 February 2016 14: 25
        0
        thank you for the info yes
  • brn521
    brn521 12 February 2016 17: 07
    +3
    Kaptsov's articles reflect one point: the absence of any accessible articles on the Internet regarding the design of modern warships. Yes, in the comments appeared "seemingly like constructors". But all they could offer us was pointing fingers somewhere into the clouds and discussing the radius of a certain spherical horse in a vacuum. So this time, as usual, I ran through the comments, the result is zero. By the way, you can no longer read Kaptsov's articles - he only raises questions, but does not have the time and even less the desire to understand them himself.
    However, there is a chance, albeit miserable, that he will achieve his goal. Someone will begin to pick literature, write essays based on it, or make thematic selections, and post it here. Here we will read them.
    1. Kars
      Kars 12 February 2016 17: 13
      +2
      Quote: brn521
      write essays based on it, or make thematic selections, and post them here. Here we will read them.

      Unfortunately, only full-scale experiments can solve the questions that Kaptsov poses.
      And the possible military clashes of ships in the Persian Gulf or the South China Sea.
  • pzkrfv4
    pzkrfv4 12 February 2016 17: 10
    0
    Very interesting stuff. I look forward to continuing
  • realist
    realist 12 February 2016 18: 00
    +2
    Mr. Kaptsov deserves respect for the consistency of his views on the issue of booking Navy ships, but sometimes it seems to me that he is quietly mocking the readers of the forum, he trolls us! and my previous proposal to equip a large number of relatively small ships with caliber complexes (displacement up to 2000 tons), and let they patrol the oceans at a distance of 100-150 miles from each arc, and then the whole ocean will be under supervision. you need to cover a maximum of 361 km², for one patrol missile boat 000x000 km = 185 square kilometers, 185: 34225 = 361 ships, although it’s really much smaller (part of the territory is own, part is not navigable not 000 miles but 000 and then 34225: 10550 = 100). How is the thought?
    1. goose
      goose 16 February 2016 15: 48
      0
      And I would consider an alternative conclusion from Oleg’s theory. - Creation of an armored and compact target ship. Only without weapons and almost without a crew, like a bait for missiles.
      Hang huge sails of corner reflectors on a self-propelled armored skeleton immersed in water. And let the first pennant in front of the squadron. Almost indestructible contraption will work. Like German ships for sabotage against ports in the First World War.
  • 16112014nk
    16112014nk 12 February 2016 18: 04
    +1
    -Bronepoyas .... would weigh almost 400 tons.

    With such parameters, as the author wrote, the armored belt would weigh 400000 tons! No EU would be enough.
  • UVB
    UVB 12 February 2016 18: 36
    +2
    Argue that bronepoyas withstand rocket hit. All those who say so do not understand that the ancient ships of Bronepoyas were in the form of a narrow “strip” along the waterline. If you raise it higher - the ship will immediately overturn. Therefore, to protect the entire board is impossible. Impossible!
    I will not enter into a meaningless argument, the mass of ships with a FULLY armored side was built, and at the same time they sailed, or rather they did not go keel up. Just for the sake of clarity, the reservation scheme of the catering Andrew the First-Called, and the thickness of the belts is far from 100 mm. \ Clickable \
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 12 February 2016 18: 57
    +2
    At first I wanted to spit ... And then ... winked
    Let us ask ourselves a question - what does Comrade Kaptsov want to achieve? Try to answer ...
    If Comrade Kaptsov simply wants to show off his mind and his erudition and assert himself on non-disassembled (poorly versed, well versed) in a certain subject comrades, then we will assume that he somehow succeeds. A certain percentage (about two-thirds) was delightedly drawn into this game and we repeatedly see direct debates that are crazy in terms of intensity with streams of digital figures, photographs, graphs, etc. attributes of the discussion smile . The rest of the comrades, either by virtue of their nature, or well-read, or understanding what to argue in this situation, what peas against the wall, made a more logical decision - to observe. Sometimes, for a change, inserting either sarcastic comments, faking off opponents, and sometimes they simply, briefly and clearly express themselves in relation to these disputes, thus making clear their attitude to the topic. Who wants to, he will understand.
    This is how all articles on this topic develop approximately. And they will be successful, because I give a guarantee, soon and more than once we will see new evidence bases for the theory of armoring of modern ships. And consequently, "deeply analytical articles by a super professional" will continue to be a tremendous success. Maybe to someone they will seem really professional, analytical, balanced, demonstrative ... BUT! This is the second side of the question.
    1. Kars
      Kars 12 February 2016 19: 01
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      This is how all the articles on this topic roughly develop. And they will succeed

      And the remaining articles on other topics, how are they developing?
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Consequently, "deeply analytical articles by a super professional" will continue to have tremendous success.

      you envy? write your article, what are the problems?
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 12 February 2016 19: 10
        0
        Quote: Kars
        you envy? write your article, what are the problems?

        I haven't finished yet wink
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 12 February 2016 19: 09
      +2
      Now let’s try to consider the situation when Comrade Kaptsov is truly a patriot of his homeland (the only question is, because judging by the flag and nickname, his homeland is wrong) and is trying to get his articles to admit that he is right, then again the question arises - what you, comrade, go dear?
      All of these strained efforts and evidence in our articles may be understandable to us (LET), but do you go there to the same audience? Some of us agree with the conclusions based on our views, some do not, some even get drunk, but someone just ends up in pants and faints from these articles ... But it’s not worth anything because we can’t fix anything. Now, if I try to implement an idea (or at least try), then I go to those people and to those institutions that are related to the theme of my desires and dreams, because it is they who own what can help me. I got water - I go to Vodokanal, I want to publish a book - I go to the Publishing House, I want to become a sailor - I go to a sailor, I want a cake - I go to a store and buy a cake ... And so on ad infinitum! I want to find out the answers to your questions - I go to those people who will give me answers to these questions ...
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 12 February 2016 19: 23
        +1
        And now about the main thing, in my opinion. If I’m so smart and worried about the defense capabilities of my country and I have wonderful ideas on how to make (in this case, ships) the armaments of this country much better, then would I go?
        Correctly. Not where trains do not go, but to people who manage and are responsible for this area of ​​the country's defense. You can direct to the admirals! Gentlemen admirals, I have ideas here to make us stronger - look, discuss, evaluate. Gentlemen admirals (unless of course they are the same patriots and not stupid) look, evaluate, discuss. If this is true and the whole doctrine of the construction of the fleet is fundamentally wrong, then they will ask the gentlemen of the builders - can you give us what we want? Lord shipbuilders will also look, evaluate, discuss ... MAKE THE CALCULATIONS !!! (Well, they also cannot be stupid - they have a couple of higher educations for sure) And they will issue a verdict - how much it will cost, how much it will take, how much it will take, it will be so and so, because our capabilities are such and such ... Then they sit down together and discuss why they are so stupid that they cannot discern the nuggets in their (or not in their) Fatherland. Unless of course they agree with all the conclusions of the patriot. They are also based on their think tanks, consultants, builders, tacticians,
        strategists, will raise many documents, etc. they will try to justify whether it is worth doing this and not this, whether it is worth booking, whether it is worth not booking, they will weigh the pros and cons ... And they will draw conclusions that (maybe) will be embodied in a new super ship!
        And then NO ONE dares to throw a stick at your constellation, Comrade Kaptsov! NOBODY. And so long as these attempts look very unconvincing (for me personally at least)
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 12 February 2016 19: 34
          0
          And now again a small question, so what do you want to achieve? You can just say - guys, let's take a walk in different alternative situations, think up and predict different situations. SIMPLY TO PLAY IN THE WAR. Or just go to the forum with your ideas. And if we really want to achieve something, then it is not necessary to achieve here - but where I said above. In the admiral’s reception rooms, in the Fleet’s Headquarters, in the designers ’offices ... And then all this ... mmmm ... to put it mildly, the annoying imposition of one’s views will not seem so that sometimes causes unpleasant feelings. , speak out and live on, and when stupidly the same thing is served, squeezed, but with different sauces, thoughts about the emotional balance of the writer already come to mindrepeat (read above about self-affirmation)
          I do not want to offend anyone, but this is just my opinion. hi
          PS does not need to give advice if they are not asked, but the answers to their questions need to be sought where they can really be found. wink
          1. pimen
            pimen 12 February 2016 19: 50
            0
            Well, a drop and a stone wears away. Of course, we do not solve anything here, but there is always the hope that alternative specialists will become mainstream. Especially in this case, when the positions of the parties are at least equally convincing
          2. Kars
            Kars 12 February 2016 19: 59
            +4
            Quote: Rurikovich
            And then all this ... mmmm ... to put it mildly, the intrusive imposition of one’s views will no longer seem so that it sometimes causes unpleasant feelings. Once you can read, speak and live on, and when it's stupidly the same

            I wonder if you understand that we are on the Internet? And can everything be done here? Do not like it, don’t read it.
            Moreover, I convinced Kaptsov of the need for armor, 5 years ago he also proved that armor was a dead weight.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 12 February 2016 21: 14
              -1
              Quote: Kars
              Moreover, I convinced Kaptsov of the need for armor, 5 years ago he also proved that armor was a dead weight.

              Oh how good It turns out that pride takes you for a capable student wink
              To be honest, I don't care about all these "Santa Barbaras". But after all, you could instruct him to be true, so that he could prove his innocence to the right people, and not on a regular website. Indeed, according to the laws of the genre, you actually changed your worldview (and maybe the fate winked ) person. crying And now he is wasting his talent proving something to the wrong people! And YOU just seeing his torment stand on the sidelines and will not prompt again the right way request And it is simply spent. That is, you are his gray cardinal ... belay So his enthusiasm would be directed to the necessary structures so that he could break through there. You see, our fleet would soon see such an invincible super vessel that O. Kaptsov dreams of ... winked
              And what it is - do not like it - do not read. This is somehow ugly in relation to many forum users. smile Somehow, something dismissive of the opinions of other people ... It is not worth it to say so to a person who changes the views of other people. wink
              And the fact that the Internet is, in the words of some people a world trash, does not mean that everything is possible there. hi
              PS Plus from me, for recognition good drinks
              1. Kars
                Kars 12 February 2016 22: 06
                +1
                Quote: Rurikovich
                true so that he can prove himself right to the right people

                the right people are busy drinking money. Why distract them. At the same time, nothing prevents them from being distracted and going to read here.
                Quote: Rurikovich
                And YOU just seeing his torment stand on the sidelines and do not tell me again the right way

                but where is the torment? I would have written, but this is not my talent.
                Quote: Rurikovich
                You see, our fleet would soon see such an invincible super vessel that O. Kaptsov dreams of
                Well, he is far from alone.

                http://topwar.ru/21078-vernutsya-li-v-okean-linkory.html
                Quote: Rurikovich
                And what it is - do not like it - do not read. This is somehow ugly in relation to many forum users. Somehow, something dismissive of the opinions of other people ..

                You think, why make other people do something?
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 13 February 2016 06: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  the right people are busy drinking money. Why distract them. At the same time, nothing prevents them from being distracted and going to read here.

                  Well, yes, they, admirals, designers, are sitting and only dreaming of how to go to some website so that they are convinced of some idea lol It turns out that if Mohammed does not go to the mountain, then she herself must go to him ... Yeah ...

                  Quote: Kars
                  Well, he is far from alone.

                  So be it. But still, common sense dictates that you need to achieve something not in your little swamp, but in the right places. And so it looks like ordinary self-assertion and self-comfort wink You do not prove it to us, but to those who can do it request
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 13 February 2016 11: 52
                    +1
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    Well, yes, they, admirals, designers, sit and only dream,

                    personal observation - the military are very skeletal people, and are preparing for the last war.
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    . And so it looks like ordinary self-assertion

                    And what's wrong with that?
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    Do not prove it to us, but to those who can do it

                    So you do not read, and do not write lengthy rebuffs, and all the problems.
  • bk316
    bk316 12 February 2016 20: 03
    +2
    I honestly do not understand anything in shipbuilding, although the device handed over the ship.

    But explain how to keep this connection in time of war by satellite phone, if it’s not suppressed by electronic warfare, but by a Chinese civil jammer of the SOHO class.

    And why is a ship with 100 mm armor invulnerable to missiles and bombs? I just served in artillery and I know what 9M133 does with 1000mm armor
  • aleksey980
    aleksey980 12 February 2016 20: 36
    +1
    As I understood from the comments (I read a third from the strength ... there was not enough patience), the author has been discussing something similar for a long time. Well, what's the deal? Make calculations, make a project, justification for it, protect it in the Ministry of Defense. Of course, in addition to the combat unit itself, it is also necessary to propose a tactic of application, otherwise the meaning of building even megavudnervafly disappears. There is no knowledge - there is a lot of educational literature, there is no ability to self-education - there are universities. Fortunately now, modern CAD tools allow you to do alone the amount of work that was previously done by several departments. request
  • Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 12 February 2016 21: 01
    0
    How many Exocets does it take to sink an Iowa class battleship? This is about the issue of booking.
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 13 February 2016 09: 33
      0
      Unrealistic a lot ..) According to the calculations of the Americans themselves, to sink an Iowa-class battleship, 10 Mk48 torpedoes must be hit simultaneously. A PKR "Exocet" is not a torpedo Mk48.
      In addition, these ships acted only as part of a group. When raising funds for their further modernization, they could still be effectively used in local conflicts.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 13 February 2016 10: 04
        +1
        how much duck fraction does it take to kill an elephant?
        Has anyone tried it? No ? Weird request

        But the battleships are going to be drowned exclusively by Exocets and small bombs. Are these the rules of the game? Maybe a convention?
        1. Kars
          Kars 13 February 2016 11: 59
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          But the battleships are going to be drowned exclusively by Exosets and small bombs

          and what can you offer the air force of argentina or turkey in exchange?
          or for example, if the Russian Federation will have to knock out debts from Venezuela?
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 13 February 2016 12: 11
            0
            mine torpedoes bombs 500 kg. Is Turkey Gallipoli?

            For debt collection, they go to an international court, rather than building battleships. What debt should it be to start a war on the other side of the world and build battleships?
            Well, (Crimea, for example) is to be squeezed off its shores, much less
            1. Kars
              Kars 15 February 2016 00: 01
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              mine torpedoes bombs 500 kg. Is Turkey Gallipoli?

              And let's see who lasts longer, a battleship or an ordinary destroyer.
    2. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 13 February 2016 12: 10
      0
      Quote: Munchhausen
      How many Exocets does it take to sink an Iowa class battleship? This is about the issue of booking.

      why bother to hammer nails with a microscope?
  • glavnykarapuz
    glavnykarapuz 13 February 2016 00: 36
    0
    This is another matter - Kaptsov writes about ships. fellow
    The main thing is not about economics, he writes (he recently had a school essay here on "an economic topic - this is what they say about this, that sometimes it is better to chew).
    For all the ambiguity of the articles about boats from Oleg, it still catches everyone with something - it causes disputes here, "the seething of the masses" (and brown wink ).
    The main article about the ships he leaves few indifferent. And this is good.
    P.S. Thanks for the personal minus in the essay about the economy wink
  • Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 13 February 2016 10: 59
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    how much duck fraction does it take to kill an elephant?
    Has anyone tried it? No ? Weird request

    But the battleships are going to be drowned exclusively by Exocets and small bombs. Are these the rules of the game? Maybe a convention?


    What could Argentina oppose to the British ship with booking the battleship level Wangard in the Falkland conflict?
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 13 February 2016 11: 08
      0
      What could the USSR oppose to the battleship Wangard? Excluding nuclear weapons? Duck fraction?
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 13 February 2016 12: 08
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        What could the USSR oppose to the battleship Wangard? Excluding nuclear weapons? Duck fraction?


        torpedoes from submarines, aviation with bombs and, again, torpedoes, coastal artillery. but the question must be asked, what could the USSR have done "Vanguard"? Why should we fight with him? we have always been a land power, don't forget!
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 13 February 2016 12: 15
          0
          Thank you, I just thought that Brezhnev "Vanguard" 57 mm NURS with Yak-38 would have drowned. Or exploding Kazanks.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 13 February 2016 13: 08
            0
            Well, firstly, the NURS S-8KO has 200mm armor penetration, so if, in addition, Vanguard approached the launch range (i.e. about 2-3 km), then the drushlag would have turned out to be the same ... Secondly, if such were in service " white elephants "would it be difficult to blow off the dust and get the BRABs out of the arsenals?
            Well, and most importantly ... On our TAKRA aircraft this is an auxiliary weapon ... and the main ones have always been "pebbles" ... which always flew farther than the shells of even the most superguns ...
            And in the most "extreme" case, there were "special items" - which even the same repeatedly declined Yak carried. For a one-way flight, it would always be enough ...
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 13 February 2016 18: 24
              +1
              It was sarcasm if you did not understand

              We do not take "special items" into account. The rules of the game are as follows: side A (Papuans) has nothing but grenade launchers, mortars, light anti-ship missiles and exploding boats. No submarines, supersonic missiles, heavy bombs, it is desirable to have no aviation at all. Duck shot is allowed. Side B has a battleship (unsinkable, of course), covered by aircraft, submarines, air defense and anti-aircraft defense ships, mine-sweeping ships, and other benefits of civilization.
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 13 February 2016 20: 15
                0
                and kaptsov for whom? for the Papuans or for civilization? just if for the Papuans, then side B has no chance - their ships are not booked (well, except for the battleship), and if for side B, then the Papuans feel bad - they have light shipments.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 14 February 2016 06: 35
                  0
                  Of course, for a superpower. It proves that a strong rich and healthy will beat the poor and the weak. There is no other alternative (other opponents) for him
  • CSI
    CSI 13 February 2016 14: 24
    0
    shorter armor, the destroyer does not need ... more active defense and missiles bully
  • Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 13 February 2016 17: 15
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    What could the USSR oppose to the battleship Wangard? Excluding nuclear weapons? Duck fraction?

    Argentina had the capabilities of the USSR?