Military Review

Shipboard armor in the XXI century. All aspects of the problem. Part of 1

68



This article will again discuss the booking of ships and anti-ship missiles. The topic is so hackneyed that it causes a sharp rejection, and the author would not dare to disturb the public with his “fabrications” if it were not for the desire to share thoughts that highlight the problem from a new point of view. This article is an attempt to understand an interesting technical problem using amateur calculations and common sense available to the average man.

On the issue of "classification"

For a complete understanding of the subsequent calculations, it is necessary to touch upon the trivial issues of weapon classification. This is necessary because many people overlook this important issue.

As you know, any weapon has its purpose and is classified according to this. Nobody demands the ability to hit detached from ICBMs Tanks on the battlefield, and no one demands from ATGMs to destroy cities on other continents.

Anti-ship missiles also have their own narrow purpose. RCC are tactical (TN), operational-tactical (RTD) and operational assignment (IT). In accordance with the basics of military art, the application of the former influences the outcome of the battle, the latter influences the outcome of the operation. Operational-tactical anti-ship missiles occupy an intermediate position and are able to influence both the outcome of the battle and the outcome of the operation as a whole.

It is the purpose of the anti-ship missiles that determines their specific technical characteristics and, accordingly, their combat capabilities. The main missiles of the TN, the most common in the world, are Uranus, Harpoon, Exocet, P-15, RBS-15, C-802 and many many less famous rockets. CRP OT are less common, but still available to most developed maritime powers (Mosquito, Brahmos, C-602). PKR IT was created exclusively in the USSR and the USA (Tomahawk, Basalt, Granite, etc.). In accordance with the presented classification of the CRP are:

RCC TN for the destruction of warships classes: boat, corvette, frigate
PKR OTN for the destruction of warships classes: frigate, destroyer, cruiser. RCC HE for the destruction of warships classes: cruiser, aircraft carrier. The destruction of transports and minor combat ships is not strictly regulated.

The issue of RCC classification is generally ignored. This is clearly seen in many publications, where they discuss the possible use of Garpun or Exocoet type anti-ship missiles on modern destroyers and cruisers. Although it is clear that they are not intended for such purposes. The closest analogue of the PKR Harpoon, Russian Uranus, is designed to destroy ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons, as well as sea transports. Those. targets in the form of destroyers and cruisers do not fall into this set at all.

Of course, this does not mean that the RPR OTN cannot be used to sink a missile boat, and the RCC TH cannot attack the cruiser. Of course it can. However, the developer did not provide for such an application, and that is why this use of missiles is not optimal.

Naval connoisseurs stories remember the Falkland War - they say, there Exoseta drowned destroyers. However, the displacement of the British destroyers of the 42 project does not exceed 5300 tons, which almost corresponds to the class of the RCC TH, that is, Exocset. In this case we are talking about the destroyers of that era. Today, ships of this class are confidently approaching the 7-8 mark of a thousand tonnes of displacement and are already going beyond the level of targets for the TAC missile.

The prevalence of CRP and the threat of their use

RCC TN possess fleets of almost all maritime powers of the world. This determines their extremely high prevalence. The carriers of such anti-ship missiles are boats, corvettes, frigates, tactical aircraft aviation and some destroyers. It would seem that protection against such a massive weapons is the highest priority. After all, no one forbids the use of anti-ship missiles on destroyers and cruisers, although this is not their main task.

However, in practice, everything is exactly the opposite. The recognized world leader of military shipbuilding, USA, removes near-zone air defense weapons (Vulcan 20-mm submachine guns) from their destroyers of the Arly Burk type. This is done from cost savings. But does save on the first priority? All that the destroyer could rely on is shipboard air defense and electronic warfare equipment. Near defense is now absent altogether. To understand this absurd situation, it is necessary to look at the question somewhat more widely.

The world of maritime powers has long been divided into several large parts. On the one hand, these are the USA and NATO, as well as Japan. In the event of a major war, they will act as a united front, like a coalition. On the other hand, this is China. The third party is Russia. And finally, all the other marine countries of the world. The last group is the largest, but the most technologically weak and poor. These countries do not have the strength and money to build or buy ships larger than a frigate, and their main weapons are the RCC TN. All this makes the most widespread type of anti-ship missiles precisely the anti-ship missiles TN, and the most widespread class of ships in the world are corvettes and frigates. In essence, these are fleets for wars of equal strength fleets third world countries. Such fleets are almost unable to confront the "big" powers, and all they can count on is luck and chance.

Destroyers and cruisers, and together with them both RCC OTN and RPC HE can only afford the first three groups. In fact, massively destroyers are built today only by the United States, China and Japan. And only the Russia and the People's Republic of China create the UN RCC and the RPC OTN. It turns out that some have large NK, but no large missiles, while others have serious missiles, but there are no serious ships. The essence of this apparent imbalance will become clear later.

US problems

The United States is the main maritime power of the world. It is the United States most fully develop its sea power. However, it is for some reason that they are less concerned about the threat of their unarmored ship forces in the form of destroyers and cruisers. The United States could create an armored destroyer a long time ago, which is not afraid of numerous anti-ship missiles all over the world, and perhaps the rest of anti-ship missiles, but do not. Why are they so careless about their extremely expensive ships and professional sailors? It can be assumed that the reason is ordinary human stupidity, but are we not too low on the richest and most toothy country in the world?

The United States has carried out and is conducting many “punitive” operations against “non-democratic” regimes in which they are using their fleets in the most active manner. However, so far none of Execetes (or another RCC) has hit a US Navy ship in a combat situation. There were only a few accidents (the Stark frigate, crew negligence) or terrorist attacks (the Cole destroyer, crew negligence). Both of these and other cases are not typical or regular. But it was in a combat situation that nothing of the kind happened. Although the threat was, for example, in Libya or Iraq.

US Navy and Allied carrier strike group. Does anyone see here at least one target for a tactical missile such as a Harpoon or an Exochet? But you can see many goals for PKR larger, for example, for Mosquito, Bramos, Granite, Basalt and aircraft X-22

The essence of punitive operations is to act against a deliberately weak opponent. As mentioned above, most countries of the world cannot afford to create a strong fleet, saturated not even by aircraft carriers or destroyers, but by primitive corvettes. These countries are simply not in a position to form a one-time rocket salvo with their missile missiles from their forces. A volley of such strength that could threaten not only the US AUG, but even a single destroyer. Most boats or corvettes carry a typical load on the 4-8 CRP TH. This is quite enough for the fleet of Kenya to threaten the Somali fleet. But it is absolutely not enough to threaten even one US destroyer. Even a lonely American destroyer, being on full alert, easily disrupts any type of 8-16 anti-ship missiles that any type of fleet can have. Some of the missiles will be shot down by an air defense missile system, some will be sidetracked with electronic warfare equipment, against which cheap anti-ship missiles do not have. And in the ideal case, AUG aviation will not even let the enemy into the range of rocket salvo.

All countries that can form a one-time PCR salvo that can actually threaten the ships of the US fleet are either part of NATO, or it is the PRC and Russia. There are still some fairly strong maritime powers, but it is very difficult to imagine a conflict between them and the United States (India, Brazil, Argentina). All other countries do not have the strength to create a serious threat to the US Navy.

As for a possible war with the Russian Federation or the People's Republic of China, the Americans, apparently, do not even plan to seriously fight at sea. Nobody believes in the reality of such a war, because it will be the nuclear end of the world, at which an armored destroyer will be the most useless thing in the world.

But even if the conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation is non-nuclear, the attitude of the United States to the Russian Navy is about the same as the attitude of the Germans in the 1941 year towards the Soviet Navy. The United States and NATO are clearly aware that they have absolute superiority on the high seas. Even at the peak of its might, the USSR could not equal the United States and NATO in terms of the size of its fleet, and even more so today. But exactly the opposite, the Russian Federation dominates its shores. Therefore, none of the American admirals (like the German admirals in 41) will send in their right mind the main forces of the fleet to the shores of Russia.

And the meaning of the emergence of AUG somewhere near Murmansk or Vladivostok is profoundly useless: even by leveling these cities with the ground, the United States will not achieve any strategic success. Russia can live for centuries without access to the seas. To inflict a really painful blow on her, she must be defeated on land, not on the sea.

What will the US Navy be doing in a non-nuclear conflict with the Russian Federation or China? The answer is simple: he will guard the trans-oceanic convoys. To protect the fleets of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China from trying to get out of the coastal zone and cause at least some damage to the US on the high seas. Having no support in the world ocean in the form of allies and a system of bases, the fleets of the PRC and the Russian Federation will be forced to use long-range aviation and submarines for this. Both those, and others are not carriers of PKR TN - it is already operational level. And as will be shown later, the creation of armor from the RPC OTN and HE for the destroyer is a very useless undertaking.

Problems of Russia and China

The Russian Navy has lost the possibility of building destroyers and so far is not trying to resume it. But PKR OTN are created, for example, in the form of coastal missile systems. There is a Russian Federation and aviation, capable of carrying the PKR TN and OTN.

A mirror image of what the US Navy has. The Americans have large NK, but there is no UN and RPC. The Russian Federation almost does not have large NK, but there is a ROV ON and OTN. And this is completely logical. The anti-ship missile and anti-personnel missile units are not needed by the US Navy due to the absence of targets for them - neither the Russian Federation nor the People's Republic of China have a developed AUG system, and the destroyer-cruiser class ships have very little. Even in Soviet times, the threat from the surface ships of the USSR Navy was not taken in the United States so seriously that they began the creation of the OTR and OH. On the other hand, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China have, as potential targets for the attack, almost 90 of the American KR and EM, up to 10 of aircraft carriers, more than 15 UDC and DKVD (and this is excluding Japan and other NATO countries). To defeat all these goals, it is precisely the PKR of the OTN or the PKR of the UN. Only a big dreamer can seriously expect to drown an aircraft carrier mix with the help of Uranus or Execetes. That is why in our Navy the traditions of the “big” rockets - Basalts and Granites - are so strong.

Approximately looks like the average surface ship of the Navy of the USSR and Russia. This is (along with the ISCs and TFRs) the typical goal of the NATO PKR. That is why in the west there is no PKP larger than Harpoon and Exoset - they simply do not need. NATO headquarters do not believe in the possibility of a general battle against a squadron of a pair of cruisers and three or four destroyers: Russians are not suicides

Russia is quite logical to develop both classes of PKR. To combat destroyers and cruisers are designed RCC Brahmos, i.e. PKR OTN, and Zircon is planned as the PKR OH. And since the main goal of the Russian Federation is still to defend the coast and dominate the closed seas (the Black and Baltic Seas), the appearance of coastal PUs of this type is logical. It is in our conditions that such a decision can be considered justified. For example, while in the Crimea, such a complex controls the 2 / 3 area of ​​the Black Sea, and when disguised, it is practically undetectable on the ground (unlike a ship, which, even with full use of stealth technology, still remains a radio contrast object).

Shipboard armor in the XXI century. All aspects of the problem. Part of 1
And this is what the main strike force of the fleet in the near sea zone looks like - 3K55 "Bastion" (in the far zone - submarines). For example, the Black Sea Fleet can fire a 24 missile at a range of 300 km, which exceeds the shock capabilities of all the ships of the same Black Sea Fleet taken together

In terms of the number of possible missile volleys in the coastal zone, Russia may well reach a serious level without the cost of building a large fleet. If we add to this long-range aviation, capable of using anti-ship missiles, tactical aircraft and diesel-electric submarines, the picture will be final. Climbing to the shores of the Russian Federation in this situation becomes too risky, and the US fleet simply does not decide on a similar adventure (with the exception of submarines and aircraft). Moreover, as mentioned above, there are no important economic or strategic goals for Russia on the coast. It is much more important for the USA not to lose control over the ocean, where commercial arteries are laid, than the dubious prospects of bombardment and shelling of Murmansk (for our population that has survived 90-e, no ruin and bombardment will come as a shock).

At the same time, the construction of EM and KR is almost unnecessary for Russia. In order to build EM and CR it is necessary to clearly understand why these expensive and complex ships are required. In the US, they are primarily engaged in the protection of AUG, amphibious connections and large oceanic convoys. The Russian Federation has nothing of this, and it is not even planned. Accordingly, there are no targets for EM and CR.

To be continued ...
Author:
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 March 2016 06: 59
    +27
    Normally good I like it. A man without pathos laid out his vision of the problem smile
    I'll come home from work in the evening and read Kaptsov's "repressions" with pleasure lol I wonder what the arguments will be now? what
    Plus hi
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 17 March 2016 08: 20
      -12%
      Prologue. Kaptsov's favorite joke
      Little Johnny in the courtyard: poson, tomorrow I’m leaving for America to my grandfather, my grandfather is deaf, I need help
      - So let the grandfather sell the house and business there and come to the Russian Federation
      - No, guys, you did not understand, my grandfather was deaf, but not crazy
      The closest analogue of the Garp harbor, Russian Uranus, is designed to destroy ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons, as well as sea transport. Those. targets in the form of destroyers and cruisers do not fall into this set at all.
      Of course, this does not mean that anti-ship missile systems cannot be used to sink a missile boat, and anti-ship missiles cannot attack a cruiser. Of course it can. However, the developer did not provide for such an application., and that is why such use of missiles is not optimal.

      It's the opposite. "Not deaf, but crazy" - "That is, targets in the form of destroyers and cruisers are not included in this set at all."

      "Not optimal" - what is ?? if US and NATO have nothing else
      Only small-sized anti-ship missiles - Harpoon (30 countries of the world), Exoset (30 countries of the world), RBS (Northern Europe), Type 90 (Japan), NSM (NATO)

      Unfortunate harpoon coupled with 500 kg KAB could not sink 4000 ton "Adams"
      You say - 500 kg KAB (as the warhead at Basalt) is also not intended for the sinking of 4000-ton ships?))


      How unfortunate NATO will sink cruisers and destroyers ??
      Yes, as usual - one harpoon is enough to disable a modern ship, if you need to finish it - they will put another 5 harpoons or KAB into the defenseless skeleton
      1. Alex_59
        17 March 2016 08: 40
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How unfortunate NATO will sink cruisers and destroyers ??
        Yes, they will not. Their opponents do not have so many cruisers and destroyers that they can seriously threaten their communications. Ships of these classes are present in the fleets of non-NATO countries in indecent miserable quantities (including Russia). Only the PRC is an exception, but even those are many times weaker.
        1. Riv
          Riv 17 March 2016 08: 48
          +7
          Doenitz, reading this, thoughtfully turns over in a frying pan in hell. Google his memoirs, count the number of German submarines, with which he put England on the brink of defeat. It is not great at all.
          Cruisers, speak? ..
        2. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 17 March 2016 09: 07
          -2
          Quote: Alex_59
          Their opponents do not have so many cruisers and destroyers that they can seriously threaten their communications.

          The contract for the development of a new rocket received in June 1971 year McDonnell Douglas. Already in October 1972, the first prototypes of a solid-propellant rocket engine rocket were presented for flight tests. By this time, it had already become clear that the optimal means of overcoming the enemy’s air defense was to fly to the target at a very low altitude and a new missile was originally designed for this condition. Since the requirements on the range by this moment almost doubled (up to 90 km), the company decided to abandon the original rocket propellant intended for installation on a rocket and replace it with a more economical turbojet.

          The production of pre-production rocket models, which received the designation AGM-84 / RGM-84 / UGM-84 for, respectively, air / surface / underwater launch began in the 1975 year. Officially, the "Harpoon" was adopted in the 1977 year in the naval version of the basing (RGM-84A). The aviation version of the AGM-84A was adopted for the P-3 aircraft in the 1979 year, and the option for submarines in the 1981 year.


          Large warships of the Navy of the USSR for the 1975 year (NK over 5000 tons):
          RKR Ave. 1134 - 4
          1134 BOD - 8
          BOD 1134Б - 5
          KrPLO Ave. 1123 - 2
          TAKR "Kiev" -1
          KRL pr. 68 bis - 8
          KRL pr. 68-A - 1
          Switchgear pr. 68-U - 2 (Zhdanov and Senyavin)
          PB Ave. 310 - 7
          PB Ave. 1886 - 10
          __________________----
          Total - 48 Warships
          and every year their number was constantly increasing
          Quote: Alex_59
          Their opponents do not have so many cruisers and destroyers that they can seriously threaten their communications.

          Quote: anodonta
          Drowning them by and large there is simply NOTHING!

          What are all these people talking about ??
          1. Alex_59
            17 March 2016 09: 32
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Large warships of the Navy of the USSR for the 1975 year (NK over 5000 tons):

            Have you read the article? Apparently not. And there, for example, the Second World War is mentioned. Tell me, how did the Germans plan to sink the Sevastopol LC and in general all the ARMORED large ships of the Black Sea Fleet? They were so prepared to fight them that on the 22 of June 1941 of the year they prepared 0 (ZERO !!!) warships against this armada.
            How were they going to sink cruisers and battleships in the Baltic? Where are the German battleships, where are the wolf packs of submarines? Where is it all? Just don't talk about the "Marat", which was a floating battery and interfered with the Germans precisely as a battery, and not as a battleship.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 17 March 2016 10: 07
              +2
              Quote: Alex_59
              They were so prepared to fight them that on the 22 of June 1941 of the year they prepared 0 (ZERO !!!) warships against this armada. Where are the German battleships, where are the wolf packs of submarines?

              I'll tell you more, there were no torpedo bombers at the Black Sea Fleet
              How were they going to sink the cruisers and battleships in the Baltic?

              Soviet KRL and LK could be drowned with bombs

              Chervona Ukraine

              It was more difficult to get into the sea on the go. Close explosions could not cause critical damage, because the Kyrgyz Republic survived and survived. However, the Black Sea Fleet was not particularly annoying, because the Germans were not particularly soared about torpedo aircraft
              Quote: Alex_59
              Where is all this?

              What was the transition to WWII?

              In the mid-70's (when Harpoon was being developed), the USSR Navy included dozens of large NKs. Against which "Harpoon was ineffective." Will you continue to prove this idea?))
              1. Alex_59
                17 March 2016 10: 18
                +4
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                In the mid-70s (when Harpoon was being developed), the USSR Navy included dozens of large NKs. Against which "Harpoon was ineffective." Will you continue to prove this idea?))

                I will not prove anything. I wrote everything in the article. smile
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 17 March 2016 18: 16
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

            PB Ave. 310 - 7
            PB Ave. 1886 - 10
            __________________----
            Total - 48 fighting ships


            Floating base - this combat ship?
      2. adept666
        adept666 17 March 2016 11: 54
        +11
        And the battle begins again
        And the heart is anxious in the chest,
        Such a jerk for battle armor,
        And young Shanghaihorst is ahead! hi
      3. Serg65
        Serg65 17 March 2016 13: 59
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        one harpoon is enough to disable a modern ship, if you need to finish it off, they will put another 5 harpoons or KAB into the defenseless skeleton

        what Oleg, then you shout that any anti-ship missiles are just bullshit, and now one harpoon is enough! So it’s not clear to me whether my grandfather is deaf or insane ????
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 17 March 2016 13: 18
      +4
      I agree with the author in almost everything. I look forward to continuing, because the topic requires an analysis of the government of the United States, China and the Russian Federation for the next 10 years from this point of view. In principle, navy_korabel has figures, although it must be understood that the RF defense order is constantly changing due to import substitution and the economy. In 2015, the export of mineral products fell by $ 2014 billion compared to 130, and the budget filling also fell, which cannot but affect goz. Most likely, in addition to reducing the budget by 5 percent, some orders will be shifted to the right.
      In general, as Alex_59 wrote, our strength is primarily on our shores and in closed seas. Accordingly, the main efforts are focused on defensive functions in the form of a bunch of watchtowers 20380-20385, MRK 22800 and 21631, ovr 22160 corvettes, 636,3 dapl, base minesweepers of project 12700 and coastal air defense systems such as s400 and brk type Bastions and Balls.
      Accordingly, only after building a defense will it be possible to seriously take on the offensive functions of the fleet. hi
    3. Dam
      Dam 17 March 2016 13: 26
      +3
      Many thanks to the author. As in the joke "let Kaptsov not sleep now"
  2. CTABEP
    CTABEP 17 March 2016 07: 13
    +6
    Great article, without unnecessary emotions and quite logical. We look forward to continuing.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 17 March 2016 08: 36
      -4
      The closest analogue of the Garp harbor, Russian Uranus, is designed to destroy ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons, as well as sea transport. Those. targets in the form of destroyers and cruisers do not fall into this set at all.

      designed to destroy ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons, as well as sea transport. - about transports prudently wrote after the last argument)))
      I just forgot to indicate how the transport differs, in terms of survivability, from a cruiser or destroyer. Modern ships are completely devoid of armor, the thickness of the sides - in the photo:

      Tin Arly Burke

      The destroyer Cole, who completely crashed from one explosion overboard, will tell about the benefits of constructive protection

      two small Exocets burned the 180-meter Atlantic Conveyor, which was larger than any cruiser



      How did this "Conveyor" differ from Mistral in terms of survivability ?? Obviously, the Harpoon missile would be ineffective against a UDC with a full v / and 20 tons?
      1. Alex_59
        17 March 2016 08: 46
        +7
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Have a conscience on Topvar mass of articles devoted to this issue. RCC are divided into two main groups - small-sized subsonic RCC
        You are not right. Read Cousin and Nikolsky. In the section on missiles, the classification issue comes first. And these are people who have devoted their whole lives to the development of the technical characteristics of rocket weapons and ships.
        Anyway, any jacket knows how the Tactical 9K79 missile differs from the TACTICAL 9K72 missile. As if other laws of military art are acting on the sea ...
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        about transports prudently wrote after the last argument)))
        I just forgot to indicate how the transport differs, in terms of survivability, from a cruiser or destroyer. Modern ships are completely devoid of armor, the thickness of the sides - in the photo:
        And survivability is the thickness of the sides? Mdya ... I can not argue with a man who believes that the earth is held on three pillars, it is useless.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 17 March 2016 09: 36
          0
          Quote: Alex_59
          As if other laws of military art are acting on the sea ...

          Obviously other
          NATO has no PKK larger than Harpoon
          Quote: Alex_59
          And survivability is the thickness of the sides?

          If she flies inside, nothing will save

          Perhaps only "Vanguard" with 3000 tons of anti-fragmentation armor with a thickness of bulkheads in the superstructure of 50 mm. With a developed counter-flooding system, which absorbed all the experience of the war years, six independent power and damage control posts, four 480 kW turbogenerators and four 450 kW diesel generators, located in eight compartments, dispersed along the entire length of the ship. The alternation of boiler rooms and turbine rooms in a "checkerboard pattern", the separation of the lines of the inner and outer shafts from 10,2 to 15,7 meters

          However, "Vanguard" was a LK of 50 tons, all these measures cannot be implemented on modern Burke-type NKs, they simply will not work due to the limited size of the ship.
          Quote: Alex_59
          Mdya ... I can’t argue with a man,

          Alex you get arrogant don't be so

          but you never answered my questions. Yes, and you yourself know that there is nothing to argue
          1. Alex_59
            17 March 2016 09: 57
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            you never answered my questions. Yes, and you yourself know that there is nothing to argue

            I have a counter question, by answering which you will be able to answer the questions you asked me yourself. Such a question - why did the developer single out sea transports as a separate point and separate them from warships from VI to 5000 tons? What explanation do you think?

            I am waiting for your answer, and then I will voice my position on the survivability of sea transport and other things.
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 17 March 2016 10: 23
              0
              Quote: Alex_59
              Such a question - why the developer

              Let's not drag the developer
              "Project Styx" (because the NATO code for the P-15 - Styx) provided for the creation of anti-ship missiles to increase the firepower of the fleet. No stupid classifications. Prior to this, the tactics provided for the use of conventional air defense systems in close combat, aviation worked at long distances. After Eilat, the Yankees realized that they needed a rocket with a range of 90 km
              Quote: Alex_59
              allocated sea transports as a separate point and separated them from warships from VI to 5000 tons? What explanation do you think?

              The one who wrote this decided to flash his mind, but obviously did not work

              Hit modern RCC equally gut and set fire to the Atlantic Conveyor, Mistral or Cole.

              only surface 200 explosion of home-made explosives from nitrate with aluminum powder (barmalei were mixed in a concrete mixer, right in my yard) outside the side (not even inside the case). the result is obvious\
              Are you talking about harpoons and 5000 tons
              Quote: Alex_59
              and then I’ll voice my position on the survivability of sea transport

              strange if it will be different from all of the above
              1. Alex_59
                17 March 2016 10: 42
                +5
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Are you talking about harpoons and 5000 tons

                It's not me. This is a developer. Do you think the developer is dumber than yourself? Why then do not you design these missiles? And your books are not published like those of Cousin and Nikolsky. Sorry, but these are just facts, nothing personal. laughing
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                strange if it will be different from all of the above

                Strange, but so far this is your position is different from the position of people who design and operate all this technology. I just quote them.

                In fact, I have not heard why maritime transports are a separate line. Drain
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 17 March 2016 11: 12
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  This is a developer.

                  just don’t say that you found TTZ and the usual report in such cases to the congress about the causes and goals of creating a harpoon

                  the developer. Joke Mlyn
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Why then do not you design these missiles?

                  this does not apply to the topic of conversation

                  do you have something to add on the previous comment? you tried to add something about survivability of transports
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  In fact, I have not heard why maritime transports are a separate line

                  Because someone so decided to write
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  but for now, this is your position is different from the position of people who design all this technology

                  THEY, these people, designed Invincible and the entire LKR class, which turned out to be ineffective coffins, as well as Sheffield, burnt from unexploded PCR

                  Cole designed the same oddball for $ 1 billion, which completely out of order from a bag of nitrate on the outside of the side

                  so this is not an argument - those who design this technique always think about something else. How to shove your project faster and cut the dough. Or just the opportunists, as Kars noted. All innovation was always done by enthusiasts.
                  1. Alex_59
                    17 March 2016 13: 15
                    +10
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    you tried to add something about survivability of transports
                    There is no time to answer all your witticisms. Transports are allocated separately because they have other high-quality equipment. Transport approach missile can not shoot down. And the transport cannot strike back. They did not kill him with one rocket - God bless him. But not a dead frigate can answer. Therefore, in practice, a salvo of 8 anti-ship missiles (typical ammunition) for transport means 90% 8 hits and its failure. He is big there, or small - 8 missiles of the X-35 type will not seem enough to any transport.

                    A salvo from the same 8 anti-ship missiles on a warship is possible 7 downed missiles and only one hit. And this hit, if it takes place, should kill this warship so much that it will not pose a threat. Whether he will sink or not is the tenth matter. The main thing is that he is not like a warship posing a threat. And then the question arises of its dimension. If we got one single hit, then what size ship will the X-35 type anti-ship missiles be capable of causing such serious damage that it is guaranteed to leave the battle? Kills an X-35 boat with one hit? Yes. Corvette will kill? Yes. Will the frigate kill? Well ... basically yes. What about the destroyer? Already difficult. Maybe yes, maybe not. It may take more than one hit. And the destroyer’s air defense is such that it can shoot down all 8 missiles. And even more.

                    Nothing to say about cruisers and aircraft carriers. So much for the displacement limit - i.e. maximum frigate or small destroyer. Conditionally - 5000 tons.
                    1. DrVintorez
                      DrVintorez 17 March 2016 14: 33
                      +2
                      HOORAY! and the goal of the Navy of the USSR / Russia (I do not take strategic submarines) by and large is to prevent the landing on its territory and reinforcements being transported to Europe from North America. that is, to drown transports! USSR / Russia is primarily a land power.
      2. 27091965
        27091965 17 March 2016 11: 02
        +4
        I just forgot to indicate how the transport differs, in terms of survivability, from a cruiser or destroyer. Modern ships are completely devoid of armor:



        “In recent years (1961-1962), the US Navy Criminal Code has developed new increased requirements for the stability and unsinkability of surface combat ships, as well as the basic principles for ensuring the unsinkability of US Navy ships.

        For missile-carrying ships without airborne structural underwater protection (BKPYA), the conditional total displacement and minimum operational displacement are accepted as design (when checking unsinkability and stability).

        In accordance with the requirements under consideration, the unsinkability of ships and vessels must be ensured under all possible loading conditions. According to them, ships with a length of less than 30,5 m must withstand the flooding of at least one of any watertight compartment, and ships with a length of 30,5–91,5 m must withstand the flooding of at least two of any compartments. The normalization of the number of flooded compartments and their length for ships longer than 91,5 m is carried out implicitly by specifying a calculated hole with a length equal to 12,5% ​​of the ship's length. By moving it along the entire length of the ship, taking into account the actual location of the bulkheads, the most dangerous variants of flooding to be checked are established taking into account their asymmetry. " 1967

        Perhaps this is a cruiser or destroyer and is different from transport.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 17 March 2016 11: 24
          -5
          Quote: 27091965i
          According to them, ships less than 30,5 m long must withstand the flooding of at least one of any waterproof compartment,

          Actually, the conveyor did not drown. It burned for two days and then was flooded

          So, in terms of survivability and the consequences of getting RCC, the container ship is no different from the destroyer, only the number of victims on the destroyer will increase several times, that's the whole difference
          Quote: 27091965i
          Perhaps this is a cruiser or destroyer and is different from transport.

          Unfortunately, your post does not apply to damage above the KVL
          RCCs do not cause flooding
          1. Ustinov 055 055
            Ustinov 055 055 17 March 2016 11: 57
            +4
            Dear you went to the sea on tankers and ships in general, if you were at least a passenger of these ships, then you understood to compare their survivability when hit by ANC ANYONE is simply nonsense.
          2. 27091965
            27091965 17 March 2016 14: 39
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Unfortunately, your post does not apply to damage above the KVL
            RCCs do not cause flooding



            -increase the strength of decks, waterproof bulkheads, doors and hatches in the main body;
            -increasing the strength of add-ons, felling, masts, combining the latter into complexes;
            - reduction of the size of superstructures and logging;
            -equipment of the most important fighting posts in the main ship hull below the upper deck (VP);
            -sealing of the main posts of the ship with equipment with their special air conditioning system, often with armored screens;
            -device in the superstructure or below the airspace of closed passages along the ship (for communication with its main posts);
            -equipping ships with a system of so-called "water protection" to remove radioactive decay products, increasing the productivity and survivability of the fire system;
            -increase the impact resistance of individual elements of the power plant, electrical equipment, weapons, surveillance, etc .;
            -application of new structural materials with increased strength and viscosity;


            You can give a lot of differences between warships and transports, the above is also relevant to the entry of anti-ship missiles. I think you know how long the DDG-16 destroyer needed to use anti-ship missiles to sink the Iranian frigate.
  3. gfs84
    gfs84 17 March 2016 07: 18
    +3
    The world of maritime powers has long been divided into several large parts. On the one hand, these are the USA and NATO, as well as Japan. In the event of a major war, they will act as a united front, like a coalition. On the other hand, this is China. The third party is Russia.


    Question - why are the Indian Navy ignored?
    Despite the fact that they build large surface ships and produce anti-ship missiles (a complete analogue of the PRC, albeit on a smaller scale).

    I saw below a footnote to the Indian Navy in the list with Brazil and Argentina (in my opinion, the Argentine Navy still falls out of this picture).

    The positions of Russia and the USA are indicated reasonably enough.

    But China and India are not consecrated (they also have large ships and missiles) - it turns out the third concept, we look forward to continuing.
    1. Alex_59
      17 March 2016 07: 45
      +9
      Quote: gfs84
      Question - why are the Indian Navy ignored?

      Well this is an article, not a monograph. So, my fingers fill so much text curves. smile
      Quote: gfs84
      But China and India are not consecrated (they also have large ships and missiles) - it turns out the third concept, we look forward to continuing.

      I have little faith in the possibility of a full-blown fight in the format of India vs USA.

      And about China - according to its capabilities in the far zone, it has not yet reached the level of the USSR Navy, and even for the sake of the USSR Navy the Americans have not bothered with the creation of armor and missiles of the operational level. So for now, a possible conflict between China and the USA will approximately repeat the scenario of a possible conflict between the USSR Navy and the USA. Those. without full-scale battles of surface ships.
      1. gfs84
        gfs84 17 March 2016 09: 25
        +2
        I have little faith in the possibility of a full-blown fight in the format of India vs USA.


        And why are you considering a confrontation with the US Navy?
        The Hindus have a more real adversary - Pakistan, whose fleet is of the "Western" model (at most, of course, frigates, but they are all either British or US), with their own weapons (and partly Chinese).
        The same applies to China as an adversary, consider - Vietnam (there are territorial disputes) whose fleet is more of a "Russian" model (maximum corvettes) and with our own weapons.
        So it turns out that the third type of fleet (hybrid - and different types of prk and large ships), adopted in China and India, may collide with two descriptive models of fleets ("Russian" all types of prk + small ships, "Western" large ships with prk tn).
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 17 March 2016 13: 36
      +1
      In my opinion, the Indian Navy is not given correctly, since they are a completely neutral country. They cooperate with both NATO and ours. From here it is clear that they are not planning a conflict with us or NATO. But, China and the Russian Federation are a parody of the film - good, bad and evil. That is, they are the angles of a triangle, where each fears the other two. India, like Vietnam, for example, has the goal of a possible confrontation only with China. The Navy of China, the Russian Federation and the United States are fleets of global powers whose interests extend to the whole world, and the Indian Navy is a large fleet of a regional power with regional interests. soldier
      1. gfs84
        gfs84 17 March 2016 18: 53
        0
        In my opinion, the Indian Navy is not given correctly, since they are a completely neutral country. They cooperate with both NATO and ours. From here it is clear that they are not planning a conflict with us or NATO. But, China and the Russian Federation are a parody of the film - good, bad and evil. That is, they are the angles of a triangle, where each fears the other two. India, like Vietnam, for example, has the goal of a possible confrontation only with China. The Navy of China, the Russian Federation and the United States are fleets of global powers whose interests extend to the whole world, and the Indian Navy is a large fleet of a regional power with regional interests.


        And if we move away from the bipolar world "Russia-NATO"?
        To look at the world from a broader perspective, from the same position of regional powers (or should these guys not think about the development of their fleets)?
        India is not a completely neutral country - it has frictions with Pakistan and China.
        India has a "Chinese" model of the fleet (the designation is conditional in the framework of the article under discussion - it implies the presence of large ships and various types of aircraft, including carrier-based aircraft - which, if my memory serves me right, you also conditionally referred to the fleet within the NATO fleets), Pakistan's "Western" model of the fleet (again within the framework of the article), so the question was voiced for which of these concepts can booking help, and can it at all? ..
        1. g1v2
          g1v2 17 March 2016 19: 10
          0
          The world is not bipolar now, but bipolar. We are talking about big geopolitical players, and India is not, even though it has a considerable fleet.
  4. Pbs
    Pbs 17 March 2016 07: 21
    +1
    Finally, a competent person was found. My thoughts are right down to the comma. Only I was too lazy to write, because I am a journalist.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 17 March 2016 08: 45
      +2
      The classification of RCC is widely ignored.

      Have a conscience

      on Topwar there are a lot of articles devoted to this issue. The anti-ship missiles are divided into two main groups - small-sized subsonic anti-ship missiles (99% of all missiles in the world, universal, with the possibility of air-based). 1% - supersonic heavy and superheavy missiles for specialized launchers and carriers, the Soviet school of rocket science.

      The exceptions are PKR-Tomahawk (BGM-109B was discontinued 15 years ago), ЗМ54 Caliber (data on practical firing) and the promising LRASM (not yet adopted). Low-flying rockets with subsonic speed on the marching portion of the flight, with adequate dimensions, with the ability to run from UVP and TA, with a starting weight of 1,5-2,5 tons. With increased warhead mass and 300 + km range at low altitude
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 17 March 2016 14: 36
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The anti-ship missiles are divided into two main groups - small-sized subsonic anti-ship missiles (99% of all missiles in the world, universal, with the possibility of air-based). 1% - supersonic heavy and superheavy missiles for specialized launchers and carriers, the Soviet school of rocket science.

        this, excuse me, where is such a classification? can I source?
  5. Geophizik
    Geophizik 17 March 2016 07: 34
    +3
    Great article! No pretensions to comprehensive analyticity, but confidently defining the main accents of the future discussion. It is well-balanced, confidently reasoned, without too much detail, but not unfounded!
  6. fransys.drake
    fransys.drake 17 March 2016 07: 39
    +3
    Greetings from the Crimean "old woman". "Sotka" is back in service. It still looks menacing, although the opinions about the expediency of re-conservation are diametrically opposed.
  7. Griboedoff
    Griboedoff 17 March 2016 07: 40
    +1
    They never got to the reservation in the first article ... Or the title was given to attract attention. Or one of the most "favorite" topics on topwar is still ahead of us. And, of course, I liked the article. You can argue about the unique qualities of a ship as much as you like, but by imposing its characteristics on the strategic situation of a particular state, you can understand its uselessness.
    1. Alex_59
      17 March 2016 07: 46
      +12
      Quote: Griboedoff
      They didn’t get to the reservation in the first article ...

      This is an intro. Entrance to the topic. smile I promise meat in 3's parts further.
    2. uskrabut
      uskrabut 17 March 2016 11: 12
      0
      The author wrote that in order to drown a destroyer or a cruiser, they need anti-ship missile defense (OHT) or OH, and no armor can save them
  8. sa-ag
    sa-ag 17 March 2016 07: 52
    -1
    According to the title of the article, it was expected that there would be a technical plan speech, but here just why it wasn’t, at the beginning of the 20th century, they were friends with armor in the Russian Empire and it was RI and then was a continental country
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 17 March 2016 19: 00
      0
      if I understand correctly, I recommend looking at the borders of the Republic of Ingushetia at the beginning of the 20th century. about weapons of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, I also recommend that you curiosity. but for a start - borders.
  9. qwert
    qwert 17 March 2016 07: 56
    +1
    "This article will again deal with the armor of ships and anti-ship missiles. The topic is so hackneyed that it causes strong rejection, and the author would not dare to disturb the public with his" fabrications "
    You can’t argue with this)))) Although you can read an opinion on this topic by anyone other than Oleg Kaptsov))))
  10. Per se.
    Per se. 17 March 2016 07: 56
    +12
    The United States could create an armored destroyer for a long time, which is not afraid of the numerous anti-ship missiles of the TN of all countries of the world, and, possibly, the other anti-ship missiles, but do not.
    It was the United States that quickly drew conclusions after the Falklands, and the most numerous series of destroyers went with changes. The hulls of ships of the Arleigh Burke series, for the first time in many years in American shipbuilding practice, began to be made almost entirely of high-strength steel, using only individual units and sections of aluminum, in particular, pipes of gas turbine installations and the main mast.
    On three quarters of the length of the hull of the 2 series destroyers, the thickness of the metal skin was increased.
    In order to increase combat survivability, five armored bulkheads were additionally installed in the ship's hull.
    The premises of the power plant, REV and control posts have Kevlar ballistic protection. In total, more than 130 tons of Kevlar (including 70 tons of this durable, but expensive material, is used to protect combat posts) are used to protect the main combat posts and units of each Arly Burke type destroyer during construction.
    Local anti-splinter armor made of high-strength aluminum-magnesium alloys up to 25,4 mm thick also serves the purpose of protecting mechanisms and equipment below the structural waterline. Plates made of these alloys protect the main waveguides, cables and the most important combat posts (the upper tiers of superstructures, the BIP premises, the ammunition cellar). In general, the impression is that they do not want to admit the obvious, armor is not an end in itself, but one of the ways to increase survivability. Logic, like, from a nuclear warhead, armor will not help, at best, an excuse for one's own weakness and lack of initiative. If it is possible to increase the survivability of ships, this should be done. If armor can reduce the damage from anti-ship missiles, this should be taken into account when designing warships. Presumably, opponents of booking would hardly have given up on the "useless" body armor before the battle, why don't you like ships so much, don't appreciate? The life of the sailors, the value of the equipment and the time limit for completing a combat or rescue mission are worth it, and this is not such a costly business as it is presented.
    1. Alex_59
      17 March 2016 08: 31
      +6
      Quote: Per se.
      It was the United States that quickly drew conclusions after the Falklands, and the most numerous series of destroyers went with changes. The hulls of ships of the Arleigh Burke series, for the first time in many years in American shipbuilding practice, began to be made almost entirely of high-strength steel, using only individual units and sections of aluminum, in particular, pipes of gas turbine installations and the main mast.

      I know that. The benefits of local protection will be described in the following sections. As well as the impossibility of booking an anti-ballistic missile in its classical sense, as our favorite author Oleg Kaptsov imagines. smile
    2. Glad
      Glad 25 June 2016 16: 57
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      Presumably, opponents of booking would hardly have given up on the "useless" body armor before the battle, why don't you like ships so much, don't appreciate?

      I will use your own analogy, dear Per se. "Bronik" should be worn if the enemy is armed with submachine guns or assault rifles. But if an adversary shoots at you with a 12,7 mm machine gun, or a 20 mm cannon, then it is unlikely that this will reduce the damage when it hits a soldier, even if he is in a bulletproof vest. In this case, let it be better, instead of a bulletproof vest, the fighter will take a couple of extra RPGs.
      With the ships - the same story. It is better to put extra air defense systems or air defense systems than to hang on a ship a useless load.
  11. Pauls_77
    Pauls_77 17 March 2016 07: 57
    +1
    Great start. We look forward to continuing.
    Although there may again be another tramp about the cosmos-ocean super dreadnought. smile
    And it turns out like in that joke about the Chukchi who wrote a story about a trip from the tundra to Moscow. laughing
  12. Max repp
    Max repp 17 March 2016 07: 58
    +2
    I put a plus to the article for consistency, but even so I want big ships and different ones.
    Yes, and honestly with pleasure I read articles about armored monsters of the beginning of the 20th century, they have something that is catchy.
  13. Serg65
    Serg65 17 March 2016 08: 04
    +5
    The article is interesting, but controversial. Somewhere you can agree, and somewhere not ... and sometimes selfishness does not allow you to nod your head laughing ... It is an indisputable fact that the US Navy is focused on the "gunboat policy" and the protection of sea transport communications. But the fact that in Soviet times the threat from surface ships of the USSR Navy was not taken so seriously in the United States that they began to create anti-ship missiles OTN and ON. not a fact, and here you can argue with Alexei. In 1950 (the beginning of the development of anti-ship missiles) in the US Navy, there were 33 aircraft carriers, the leadership of the USSR faced a dilemma, build a fleet comparable to the US Navy or create a weapon capable of withstanding the US naval armada. The choice fell on the creation of a new type of weapon.
    The Navy of the USSR had three directions of development:
    1. Creation of ICBM carriers.
    2. The creation of diverse forces to combat the AUG of the enemy.
    3. The creation of diverse forces to combat the carriers of ICBMs of the enemy.
    The statement that the United States did not build anti-ship missiles because it did not perceive the Soviet Navy was mostly not true. Based on the experience of the 2 MV, the Americans were sure that the armada of aircraft carriers would sweep everything in their path and therefore relied on the AUG as in the rest now.
    Further, Alexey declares that the construction of destroyers and cruisers for Russia is almost unnecessary. Regarding the cruisers, I agree, but with regards to EMs ... "What will the US Navy be busy with in a non-nuclear conflict with the Russian Federation or China? The answer is simple: it will guard transoceanic convoys", this is what EMs are needed for, but not Leaders (this is purely my opinion) and less expensive, mass series, with good air defense and with a sufficient number of OTN anti-ship missiles.
    1. Alex_59
      17 March 2016 08: 27
      +5
      Quote: Serg65
      Further, Alexey declares that the construction of destroyers and cruisers for Russia is almost unnecessary. Regarding the cruisers, I agree, but with regards to EMs ... "What will the US Navy be busy with in a non-nuclear conflict with the Russian Federation or China? The answer is simple: it will guard transoceanic convoys", this is what EMs are needed for, but not Leaders (this is purely my opinion) and less expensive, mass series, with good air defense and with a sufficient number of OTN anti-ship missiles.
      I proceed from the fact that Russia does not and is not expected to have transoceanic convoys. And for the protection of coastal in the closed seas, TFR with developed anti-aircraft defense and air defense and maximum secrecy are needed. In my understanding, the avenue 22160 came very close to such a concept on the TFR under construction. Well, offshore IBA and IA uniquely steers along the coast.
      For the rest, I agree with your criticism, thank you for the comments.
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 17 March 2016 10: 15
        +6
        Quote: Alex_59
        I proceed from the fact that Russia does not and is not expected to have transoceanic convoys. And for the protection of coastal in the closed seas, TFR with developed anti-aircraft defense and air defense and maximum secrecy are needed. In my understanding, the avenue 22160 came very close to such a concept on the TFR under construction. Well, offshore IBA and IA uniquely steers along the coast.


        Alexey! Thank you for the article.
        On the one hand, I don’t really like your (with Oleg) confrontation due to some excessive self-confidence, but in the end I am grateful to both you and Oleg - in such disputes, understanding of the principles of thinking from different sides is polished.
        This is very much needed on this site.

        It seems to me that in the confrontations of fleets in coastal areas, many in vain rely on the support of coastal infrastructure.
        And that ships can be built even less, they will still be supported.

        So.
        I have an opinion.
        They will not be supported.
        For 5000 cruise missiles, which are in the ammunition of the adversaries, will demolish all the potential coastal infrastructure.
        Waves, one by one.
        With many MALDS.
        Of which on the same B-52 there are almost 150 pieces in a hitch.

        They will endure everything possible.
        All real and reserve positional areas of the radar station, anti-ship missile systems, aerodromes, military positions, power lines, fuel and lubricants warehouses and storage facilities, bridges, cliffs over roads, intersections.
        Everything will be made.
        From a distance to the coastline in 500 miles, in order to exclude a massive attack by IS aviation (bomber due to its small number can be neglected) from coastal airfields.
        In total, everything that can be in the 1600 zone of kilometers from the coastline and be related to the military infrastructure directly or indirectly will be necessarily swept away and destroyed.
        After a couple of thousand missiles - no aviation or coastal defense.
        And only then will the enemy fleet approach the zone of potential reach of the potential coastal defense and the area of ​​the TFR.
        1. engineer74
          engineer74 17 March 2016 15: 17
          +2
          After a couple of thousand missiles - no aviation or coastal defense.

          A salvo launch of a "couple of thousand" cruise missiles will take about 700 ICBMs into the sky, because the Ax does not say what equipment it is in and where it is flying! And then as if by notes ...
          IMHO
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 17 March 2016 19: 38
            0
            Quote: engineer74
            After a couple of thousand missiles - no aviation or coastal defense.

            A salvo launch of a "couple of thousand" cruise missiles will take about 700 ICBMs into the sky, because the Ax does not say what equipment it is in and where it is flying! And then as if by notes ...
            IMHO


            Not certainly in that way...
            A blow to the coastal territory is an act of aggression. regional.
            Wars.
            It alone does not carry attempts to overthrow the political system.
            unless of course your capital, your government and administration are located on the coastal territory.

            The main thing is the existence of the state - the Russian Federation!
            Our doctrine is ambiguous. They may strike at the enemy, but may not.

            I believe that in the next 5-10 years we will see the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
            But where is the question for now.
            But with 99% certainty, the Middle East.
            Qatar, Emirates, Sauda, ​​Turkey, Iran.
            The first four are ours. When these "democratic countries" will completely lose their scent and from their insolence will cease to see the shores.
            Sauddites can hit Iran.

            At 1% - Ukraine.
            Because, local readers see only local articles about that. how concerned the State Department.
            But they do not see western newspapers.
            That is already the third year that concrete promotion of the fact that Russia is an empire of evil, all evil in the world from Russia, all migrants from Russia, has been going on.
            Turn over all cases and facts like that. that Russia is always to blame for everything.
            In general, prepare the population.
            And it is already ready.
            I know this, so to speak firsthand.
            It was the same with Iraq and Yugoslavia.
            And they will go to fight Crimea and Donbass.

            And the Polish Minister of Defense, the one with the flying cuckoo, is an indicator of the general level of power structures in European countries. It's just that he is less silent and therefore looks stupid. The rest are more silent and seem smarter.
            But this is only external.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 17 March 2016 21: 43
            0
            We do not have 700 ICBMs.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 17 March 2016 14: 32
        +2
        Quote: Alex_59
        I proceed from the fact that Russia does not and does not expect transoceanic convoys

        Alexei, you did not understand me a little. I meant American convoys. Most likely, hostilities can take place on the European theater of operations (God forbid, of course), European armies are unlikely to be able to oppose the Russian army alone without US assistance. The remoteness of this theater from the shores of America plays into Russia's hands. But the American boys also work with their heads and understand that the most vulnerable place is the convoys, so they deployed their base-warehouses such as Ramstein on the expanses of Europe. With the advent of the Caliber, such bases became vulnerable and the topic of convoys again becomes relevant. hi
  14. shurup
    shurup 17 March 2016 09: 30
    0
    Russian metal producers are urgently required to sell their products somewhere. The construction program of the armored fleet allows temporarily solving their problems at the expense of the budget.
    Please consider this factor in the discussion.
  15. engineer
    engineer 17 March 2016 09: 44
    0
    Transoceanic convoys? Here again, it is a priori assumed that the war will not be nuclear. In the case of the use of nuclear weapons, the convoys will simply not be needed. And even more so the armor on the ships. Everything is right with America and with us. A fleet is needed for small local wars and powerful augs are needed for America, and for us, a couple of aircraft-carrying cruisers are enough. The rest is coastal defense and submarine-based rpksn. Quite enough.
  16. fix
    fix 17 March 2016 09: 49
    0
    // What will the US fleet be doing in a non-nuclear conflict with Russia or China? The answer is simple: it will guard transoceanic convoys. Protect from attempts by the fleets of the Russian Federation and China to get out of the coastal zone and inflict at least some damage to the USA on the high seas.

    Recalled the strategy of confrontation between Napoleonic France and England - a naval blockade by the British of Europe, but the impossibility of victory on the continent.
    Our “partners” are also preparing European satellites for a possible ground operation against Russia.
    Hence the conclusion - more missiles, good and different. And send disarmament proposals.
  17. kvs207
    kvs207 17 March 2016 09: 52
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    How did this "Conveyor" differ from Mistral in terms of survivability ??

    I think the number of crew members able to fight for survivability.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 17 March 2016 10: 28
      -2
      Quote: kvs207
      I think the number of crew members able to fight for survivability.

      What survivability is there when hundreds of tons of b / p and kerosene burn

      Just the number of victims will increase from 12 to 120, that's the whole calculation
  18. sevtrash
    sevtrash 17 March 2016 09: 58
    +2
    Regarding the classification - and if so: 1 RCC type Harpoon is TN; 2-3 harpoon-type missiles are OTH; and a flock of Harpoon missiles 5-6 missiles is OH; and a large flock (pieces 20-25-30 and more) - strategic.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 17 March 2016 10: 30
      +1
      Quote: sevtrash
      Regarding the classification - and if so: 1 RCC type Harpoon is TN; 2-3 harpoon-type missiles are OTH; and a flock of Harpoon missiles 5-6 missiles is OH; and a large flock (pieces 20-25-30 and more) - strategic.

      That damn sure understanding of the situation.

      destruction does not depend on warhead missiles, but on the number of missiles in a salvo
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 17 March 2016 10: 46
        +4
        In addition, the main task of the RCC is not to sink the ship, but to disable it.
        "Cole" was not sunk, but was able to re-enter the US Navy a year and a half after damage
      2. PPD
        PPD 17 March 2016 11: 28
        +1
        Well then, from the number of hits.
      3. Alex_59
        17 March 2016 14: 28
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        destruction does not depend on warhead missiles, but on the number of missiles in a salvo
        What, right? Does it really depend on warheads? If I give a volley of 1000 76-mm shells at the Iowa battleship, will it suffer more severe damage than if I make a volley of 10 456-mm shells at it?

        Quote: sevtrash
        Regarding the classification - and if so: 1 RCC type Harpoon is TN; 2-3 harpoon-type missiles are OTH; and a flock of Harpoon missiles 5-6 missiles is OH; and a large flock (pieces 20-25-30 and more) - strategic.
        I specifically pointed out in the article that no one prohibits the use of anti-ship missiles against large surface targets. You can at least on an aircraft carrier - who decree to us? Here the problem is different. The objectives of the operational level have many times more powerful combat capabilities. You may not be allowed into the salvo range. And a volley for such a goal must be formed hoo! Those. to concentrate a large number of RCC TN carriers at the site of impact. The opponent obviously will not sit back and wait for you to reach the desired concentration. But even if you give a volley - a powerful air defense of operational goals will bring down most of the RCC, and those that get to the goals will have to cause unacceptable damage. Well, imagine what would happen if the 2-3 Harpoon reached the aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier will hardly suffer. But if at least one anti-ship missile system with a warhead of 500-1000 kg gets to it ... That's why anti-ship missiles with such warheads are classified as operational. And the means of overcoming air defense in such missiles are more powerful, i.e. the probability of a breakthrough is higher.
        That's why the developer writes about 5000 tons for X-35. You can shoot at larger targets - please, only the developer does not guarantee success.
    2. le-s-ha
      le-s-ha 17 March 2016 11: 43
      +2
      If 30 harpoons would fly 30 times further than one harpoon, then yes, the strategic tasks of such a flock would be solved without problems. And the big question is, what is more profitable, to launch a pair of missiles from a distance not accessible to the defending side and hit a vital target at the command center level or to sink with a full salvo after being hit by a pre-emptive strike or entering the air defense zone as a must for aviation. And the range does not always decide, strategic missiles must have a body kit in the form of target designation and the possibility of a missile defense breakthrough
  19. Lopatov
    Lopatov 17 March 2016 10: 03
    +1
    What will the US Navy do in a non-nuclear conflict with the Russian Federation or China?

    Support US Marine Corps operations. A tool that is clearly too powerful for local conflicts with an obviously weaker adversary
  20. Taoist
    Taoist 17 March 2016 10: 18
    +2
    A good article, quite logical in contrast to the "emotional arguments" of opponents. War (especially now) is primarily about the economy. And nails can be hammered in with a microscope, but it is more convenient to do it faster and cheaper with a hammer.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 17 March 2016 10: 38
      -2
      Quote: Taoist
      And you can hammer in nails with a microscope, but it’s more convenient to do it with a hammer faster and cheaper.

      We all know this aphorism

      Why he was told in the topic how Harpoon is ineffective (and even useless) against destroyers
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 17 March 2016 14: 48
        +3
        The harpoon is quite effective as well as its domestic counterpart ... And if you do not understand the missile division system according to tasks, then this is exclusively your grief. You have already been repeatedly explained on your fingers that "disrupting the fulfillment of a combat mission" is also a result, but was the ship already sunk again ...
  21. castle
    castle 17 March 2016 10: 29
    0
    All US against Russia or vice versa. Does China have drooling when looking at the Russian Far East?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 17 March 2016 10: 49
      0
      Japan, too, was drooling. However, they preferred another option, even in the conditions of the total weakening of the USSR due to the war in the European part.

      The Chinese are definitely not dumber.
  22. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 17 March 2016 10: 55
    +3
    Such an article is good. Of course, it’s ambiguous, but it’s good. I have given the fleet more than 20 years, and in principle I agree with many of the author’s calculations. Even at the peak of its power, the USSR Navy (its surface component) was pretty decent inferior to the US fleet, and not about of which there was no serious military conflict. The main task of the fleet was to safely withdraw the submarines from the bases in the event of a threat of war with NATO. It was the submarines that were the main striking force of the fleet. Regarding reservations, local reservation was present on almost all projects, total with modern development all the same, it doesn’t have any means of destruction (tandem warheads, hill damage, a sharp increase in target selectivity).
    1. ametist415
      ametist415 17 March 2016 12: 22
      -1
      The cost of the Soviet fleet was such that it was scary to think. If all the expended resources were rationally used, then Russia would have a multi-purpose aircraft carrier fleet with developed coastal infrastructure and modern multifunctional weapons. Resources spent, but no fleet. The reasons may be inadequacy of senior management and targeted sabotage, i.e. some are dolbyotyatly, others are traitors to the motherland.
  23. uskrabut
    uskrabut 17 March 2016 11: 19
    -1
    Everyone understands that in the event of a global conflict, no one will restrain themselves from using nuclear weapons. Especially on AUG. America drove itself into a vicious circle: it builds aircraft carriers to protect cruisers and destroyers from the air, then it builds cruisers and destroyers to protect aircraft carriers. laughing And all together is an excellent target for which no one will shoot a bunch of rockets with conventional charges, but they will shoot a couple of with nuclear warheads. The issue of booking itself closed.
    1. ametist415
      ametist415 17 March 2016 12: 10
      -2
      America drove itself into a vicious circle: it builds aircraft carriers to protect cruisers and destroyers from the air, then it builds cruisers and destroyers to protect aircraft carriers.

      This is called a balanced ocean fleet to solve various problems in the oceans.
  24. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 17 March 2016 12: 00
    0
    Quote: fransys.drake
    Greetings from the Crimean "old woman". "Sotka" is back in service. It still looks menacing, although the opinions about the expediency of re-conservation are diametrically opposed.

    5 points and all disputes to merge,
  25. MolGro
    MolGro 17 March 2016 12: 37
    0
    ATGM in Yemen


    Here is also an interesting topic)
  26. Gunther
    Gunther 17 March 2016 13: 03
    -1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Unhappy harpoon with 500 kg KAB not
    were able to sink 4000 ton "Adams"

    This does not mean that the anti-ship missile system cannot sink the "Adams", it means that the "Harpoon" is useless)))
    1. Oleg7700
      Oleg7700 17 March 2016 19: 10
      +1
      Gentlemen! Why do these ill-fated surface ships have to be "drowned" bloodthirsty, instead of precisely hitting the radars, incl. not working? (I can only judge what Israel has for such a procedure, from very long distances - from a hundred to a thousand km ...) By the way, the 4000-ton experimental type of O.H. Peri sank after the impact of CM-6 with a "small" 250 kg. warhead, launched from a hundred miles, but on three swings of kinetic energy - which means mV square, albeit divided by two ... According to unconfirmed reports, it broke in half. Good evening everyone ...
  27. vvp2412
    vvp2412 17 March 2016 13: 52
    -1
    Good article. Unlike Kaptsov’s shit!
  28. exo
    exo 17 March 2016 15: 14
    0
    The attempt to systematize RCC itself inspires respect. Only if at such a pace China continues to develop its fleet, which includes quite large carriers with landing ships, the Americans will have to return to the Phalanxes and large anti-ship missiles. The conflict in the Pacific Ocean does not necessarily develop into a nuclear one.
  29. Zigmars
    Zigmars 17 March 2016 16: 30
    0
    Very interesting article. Maybe it will sound too defiant and arrogant, but - I haven’t read such here a long time ago)) The author consistently, carefully, and most importantly - argues, logically and convincingly proves his point of view.
    I look forward to continuing.
  30. Gunther
    Gunther 17 March 2016 19: 33
    0
    Gee, minus)
    Well, justify?
    How, for example, RCC showed itself
    Harpoon in the Falklands?
    The fact that 7000 pieces were slammed up by RPC Harpoon and is in service with 30 countries of the world is not an argument.
    And there is no need for questions "How many Onyxes / Yakhons were released", we are talking about a harpoon.
    But in fact:
    Unhappy harpoon with 500 kg KAB not
    were able to sink 4000 ton "Adams"

    )))
  31. kuz363
    kuz363 17 March 2016 20: 32
    0
    (for our population that has survived the 90s, no devastation and bombing will not be a shock).
    Minus to the author. Decided to do hacking work?
  32. 3danimal
    3danimal 15 September 2019 06: 09
    0
    Good article. One can argue only with a displacement: the equipment that they strive to pack in 4000 ton frigates would fit better in ~ 7000 ton hulls. This is not a call to build "Leaders", etc.
    Aircraft carriers, I agree, are not seriously needed, but for a "tick" - too expensive in construction and maintenance. Although the money on this "master" can be measured. It is only necessary to be able to properly present the “toy” to the aging leader.
    And about Zircon: I looked, they are waiting for him at this forum "next year" since 2011 (!). There were no trials of a scramjet similar to the American Wave-rider, so everything is in question. Although, according to one version, Zircon is not a new RCC with a scramjet, but only a modernization of Bramos. Then maybe soon.