Military Review

Shipboard armor in the XXI century. All aspects of the problem. Part of 2

83



Volumes and masses

Let's start with the fact that we recall the previously stated statement that modern destroyers and cruisers are descendants of the Second World War artillery destroyers, and not of the battleships. And they never had a counter booking. Moreover, never in stories fleet there were no ships with developed anti-shell armor and a displacement of less than 5000 tons. For example, the famous leader of Tashkent with a total displacement of 4175 tons and a length of 133 meters (why not a modern frigate?) Had only a local anti-fragmentation armor 8 mm thick.

The first missile cruiser of the Soviet Navy was originally to become a destroyer, and even the number of the 58 project was from the "mine-carrying" series. The same applies to the first BOD of the Soviet fleet - the 61 project. Of the two ships, all the rest of the BOD and the KR went, right up to the most recent - like 1164. Naturally, they did not carry any armor and it was not planned.

However, despite the bad "miner" heredity, no one has yet decided to revive the booking in serious volumes. Only local protection of some systems is used, nothing more.

The first serious constraint is the growth of areas that need to be booked, if you really revive this important science. It is not at all the masses and loads that are the bottleneck of modern ships - for these items just the stocks are substantial. Modern ships need large volumes to deploy weapons and equipment. And these volumes compared with armored ships of the Second World War have increased significantly. And, despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from primitive 50-x samples to the most modern, the volumes allocated for rocket weapon, do not decrease. Any attempt to tighten the armor on these volumes leads to such refinement of the reservation that it turns into a foil.

The growth of volumes after WWII occurred rapidly. To demonstrate this phenomenon, we cite a fundamental work on the Soviet Navy "Navy USSR 1945-1991", V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky, p. 447: "...the appearance of rocket weapons and radio electronic means did not have a fundamental impact on the design problems of such ships as AVK, DK, TSS, MPK, TKA and a number of others. At the same time, the appearance of multi-purpose ships of the KR class, EM and TFR under their influence began to change rapidly. Equipping them with rocket weapons and radio electronic means required from a new position to approach the issues of their general location. On these ships, while maintaining the relative mass of the ammunition at the same level, the volumes of the ammunition cellars increased 2,5-3 times as compared with ships built by 50. So, for example, the specific volume of the 130-mm artillery ammunition cellars was only 5,5 м3 / t, and the anti-aircraft missile cellars were already more than 15 м3 / t. ”

Shipboard armor in the XXI century. All aspects of the problem. Part of 2


The table clearly shows how the volume of the payload article is constantly growing, from project to project, from 14% hull volume of the destroyer Ave 30-bis to 32,4% of the 1134 cruiser. When this happens a slight decrease in the volume of the power plant.

Further V.P. Kuzin and V.I. Nikolsky write: “In the same period, the space required for the placement of control posts for weapons and armament complexes increased. As a result, the relative volume of premises occupied by the payload increased by 1,5-2 times and amounted to 30-40% of the total volume of the hull with the superstructure. ... With a significant increase in the specific volume of the payload there was a sharp increase in the volume of the ship's hull, and, consequently, its relative mass increased from 42-43% to 52-57%. In the end, all this led to the fact that the side height and dimensions of superstructures began to increase rapidly. At the same time, the rocket cellars, due to the large dimensions of the rockets, not only did not fit below the waterline level, which was previously an indispensable condition for the location of the artillery cellars, but in some cases went to the upper deck. This led to the fact that more than 40% of the ship's length was occupied by explosive rooms. ”

From the above quotation it becomes clear why a very noticeable increase in the volume of payload does not lead to a decrease in the proportion of the volume of the hull. It would seem that superstructures should grow. But the corps themselves also became more voluminous than those of artillery ships, which led to the preservation of the relative share of the corps volume at the same level.

The author carried out his own calculations for a number of ships.


The table shows the ships of different eras and classes. All the more revealing are the results.

The increase in armaments on modern rocket ships is clearly noticeable - more than 2 times. If the “Algeri” 2645 m3 weapons volume, then at exactly the same size as the “Glory” it is already twice as large - 5 740 m3. Given that the weight of weapons fell by more than 2 times. The ratio of the mass of weapons to its volume is strikingly close to all ships "before the missile" era - even the 68-bis this 493,1 kg / m3 indicator, almost exactly the same as the Algeri with its 490,1 kg / m3.

The decrease in the volume allocated for the power plant is almost negligible. But on modern ships, completely new types of equipment appeared that simply did not exist on ships of the WWII era. This hydroacoustics, electronics, electronic warfare. For example, on the RKR of the “Glory” type, only one room of the towed HAS takes 300 m3 or 10 meters of body length. Along with the advent of new energy-intensive equipment, there is an increase in the number and capacity of electric generators, which also require ever increasing volumes. On the Alzheri TCR, the total power of the generators was 1400 kW, the LKR Brooklyn already had 2200 kW, and on the relatively modern BOD Ave 1134B it reaches 5600 kW.

Missile cruiser "Admiral Golovko" on the disarmament at the Minewall, 2002 year. Clearly visible niches cellars PKR P-35, voluminous and placed in the superstructure. In the future, such bulky ammunition rooms on rocket ships did not, however, the volume of rocket weapons did not decrease to the volume of artillery installations. Photo: http://navsource.narod.ru/

Also visible is a clear underload of modern ships. With the same length and width, they have a noticeably smaller displacement and draft. Stocks for the load is clearly not fully expended by the designers. It is quite possible to load the RRC "Glory" with additional 1500 tons, if this does not adversely affect the characteristics of its stability. It is quite possible, because many ships in the process of operation are upgraded and receive additional load. For example, the LKR displacement of the Brooklyn type during service varied very widely, while maintaining the original dimensions of the hull.



As can be seen from the table, during the operation the Brooklyn-type LKRs were loaded from 500 to almost 1000 tons of additional load, which, of course, wagged both the draft and stability. The meta-centric height of "Brooklyn" in 1,5 is less than that of the modern BOD Ave. 1134B, which clearly indicates the reserves of the latter to increase the "upper weight". Destroyers of the class "Arly Burke" during the development of the project received an additional load in 1200 tons, settling on 0,3 meters and becoming the longest on 2 meters.

Ironclad Cold War

The assertion that the development of armored ships broke off with the departure of the WWII era is not entirely true. There is a class of armored combat ships, which were built in the 70-s and later. We are talking about armored cars and river artillery ships. These small ships are a good example of how a relatively modern ship, even without acquiring qualitatively new weapons, lost the protective qualities of armor. And the example of such boats shows the influence of objective factors.

The strongest BKA in the Navy of the USSR became a boat of the 191 project. This was the apogee of the development of the armored boat. He absorbed the entire experience of this class of ships during the Second World War. And the experience of this kind in the Soviet fleet was unique and the greatest. Construction of these ships began in the 1947 year. Then there was a big break, and finally, a qualitatively new descendant appeared in 1967 - the armored car of the 1204 project.



The boat of the project 1204 with practically unchanged dimensions became noticeably more massive, changed the 85 mm gun tank T-34-85 on a very weak gun of the PT-76 tank, and the thickness of the reservation was twice as bad. And if we also consider the area of ​​the hull, covered with armor, it becomes obvious that the project 1204 was not twice, but many times weaker than the boats of the project 191.

Why did this happen? Are the designers - mediocrity or pests? (by the way, the 191 and 1204 projects have the same main designer). Or has the 1204 design boat acquired volumetric, but light rocket weapons, underwater acoustics, or radio electronics?

We read A.V. Platonov "Soviet monitors, gunboats and armored boats": “But you have to pay for everything, just like here: comparatively powerful weaponry and defense were sacrificed, above all, habitability. ... So where does the claim to the harsh living conditions, which were almost the very first when discussing the concept of a new artillery boat, come from? And from the border guards. It was they who, having received the boats pr. 191M and using them as patrol and watchmen, fully experienced all the pleasures of living in tiny rooms, where it was not possible to get up to their full height everywhere. ”

Why are boats mentioned here? Solely in order to show that the refusal of reservation or its degradation may be associated with the emergence of new objective reasons, and not the cause of the stupidity or incompetence of naval strategists or designers. Armored boats are so small warships that the mere requirement to improve habitability (even without the introduction of bulk rocket systems and equipment) immediately led to a drop in the level of protection.

Further more. The USSR built a series of MAC 1208 project, which could not be compared with the pre-war monitors on the degree of protection and power of weapons. In the same place, at A.V. Platonov said about this: “... In part, all this is explicable: almost all modern military shipbuilding was confronted with the fact that the greatly increased demand for the deployment of modern types of weapons and technical equipment literally“ squeezed ”their combat posts from the corps. This led to the widespread emergence of elongated forecastles and bulky multi-tiered superstructures occupying almost the entire area of ​​the upper deck, and this had to be tolerated. ”

It should be noted that we are talking about “squeezing” up combat posts, and not about creating some new squares. This suggests that in the era of armor, and today - there are no unclaimed reserves from the designers of the ships. All resources are involved to the maximum, and it will not be possible to simply remove certain volumes. In a modern ship, there are no “unnecessary” volumes that can be easily sacrificed for the sake of improving other characteristics. Therefore, any "cutting" add-ons or reducing the size of the body will necessarily affect something important.

Продолжение следует ...
Author:
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 18 March 2016 06: 53
    +13
    More interesting good A plus.
    The reasoning is quite logical and explaining many points. We will wait for the continuation
    1. Malkor
      Malkor 20 March 2016 19: 54
      +2
      Hmm on Kaptsovsky fables launched a powerful torpedo. It is pleasant to read clever thoughts, and not the gray nonsense of a graphomaniac.
  2. Revolver
    Revolver 18 March 2016 08: 00
    +13
    Do not forget about computer equipment. And the air conditioning that computers drag along. This person can serve out of inhuman conditions of heat and humidity out of a sense of duty and patriotism, but the server does not have this feeling, overheats and freezes.

    Hillary for prison 2016 !!!
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 18 March 2016 08: 20
      -5
      Quote: Nagan
      Do not forget about computer equipment. And the air conditioning that computers drag along.

      Oh you are Christmas trees

      C-300 computer equipment climbed onto a pair of mobile chassis. Snow, rain, heat of the Hemeimim air base. Long-range air defense systems - much more complicated, the most bulky, important and expensive weapon
      fits on a MOBILE chassis

      And after that they will fill in here about the difficulties of placing computers on ships
      Quote: Nagan
      Hillary for prison 2016 !!!

      What would be the social message of this post in the Russian-language HE? in the topic of boats
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 18 March 2016 10: 31
        +13
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        C-300 computer equipment climbed onto a pair of mobile chassis.

        Overall and weight characteristics of the "Fort-M" air defense system:
        Weight, t:
        - 40 control system
        - 12.5 antenna post
        - PU 3-48 with ammunition 47 ZUR 48Н6Е (8 drums on 8 SAM) 250
        - PU module for SAM 48Н6Е2 9
        - launcher module with 4 SAM 48H6E2 19.5
        Area, m2:
        - premises for the placement of 176 equipment
        - PU for 47 ZUR 48Н6Е 120
        - PU module for 4 SAM 48H6E2 21
        Those. Oleg, do you think that in the ground and naval air defense systems the mass and dimensions are the same?
        If so, then why fence the garden and adapt the land to ship conditions?
        Do not bother Oleg!
        1. Alex_59
          18 March 2016 10: 40
          +10
          Quote: Serg65
          Those. Oleg, do you think that in the ground and naval air defense systems the mass and dimensions are the same?

          There is one more small nuance. Ground C-300ПМ (photo by the way to the left - on it C-300В) does not have anti-shell armor. smile It would be fun for me to look at the land C-300ПМ covered with armor by armored standards. laughing
          1. Malkor
            Malkor 20 March 2016 19: 56
            +1
            I also thought that with the s-300 the example is left, there is no armor.
        2. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 18 March 2016 10: 44
          -1
          Quote: Serg65
          - PU 3-48 with ammunition 47 ZUR 48Н6Е (8 drums on 8 SAM) 250
          - PU module for SAM 48Н6Е2 9
          - launcher module with 4 SAM 48H6E2 19.5

          PU - this is a separate article of the load, weapons
          on any cruiser, UVP are reserved for a hundred missiles

          and here are modern UVP

          8-charging modules, length 343 inches = 9 meters
          Quote: Serg65
          If so, then why fence the garden and adapt the land to ship conditions?

          What are you going to adapt there, besides PU
          1. alstr
            alstr 18 March 2016 12: 56
            +4
            It is necessary to adapt the power supply, as each container in the land version and each leading launcher has its own generator. This is unnecessary for the ship.
            Plus, pairing with ship's antenna posts is different. The geolocation system is different.
            Another arrangement of the equipment itself is to ensure survivability of the ship and ergonomics of the compartments.
            The total volume should vary slightly (except for the antenna post - the antenna itself).
            By weight it should be easier due to the lack of chassis, containers (this will be the weight of the case), power generators.
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 18 March 2016 13: 31
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What are you going to adapt there, besides PU

            Oleg, I’m no longer surprised at your egoism!

            Quote: Serg65
            Overall and weight characteristics of the "Fort-M" air defense system:
            Weight, t:
            - 40 control system
            - 12.5 antenna post

            Total 52,5 tons! What MAZ can calmly drag 52 tones? And these 52 tones are the same as this ...
        3. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 18 March 2016 21: 22
          -1
          Quote: Serg65

          Overall and weight characteristics of the "Fort-M" air defense system:

          This is the 1984 year, it seems to be not modern, an article in the title about the 21 century.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 19 March 2016 06: 57
            +2
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            This is the 1984 year, it seems to be not modern, an article in the title about the 21 century.

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            C-300 computer equipment climbed onto a pair of mobile chassis.

            I certainly apologize wildly, but conscience does not allow to call the S-300 air defense system a weapon of the 21st century, but the "Fort-M" air defense system is a marine analogue of three hundred. Yes, I agree in the title of the article there are numbers XXI and the letter "c", but in the article itself I did not find a discussion of weapons of the 21st century! hi
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 19 March 2016 08: 51
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              but in the article itself I didn’t find a discussion of the weapons of the 21st century!

              So it will be like the third part. What kind of cell phone did you have in 84? Oh yes, I forgot there were no cellular then, in 84 all communication was analog, digital sprouts just started, I work in telecommunications and saw how from 1984 to now, stations occupying floors of buildings have turned into a suitcase with which people have a rest are driving. So the message of the author about electronic equipment that takes up a lot of space is doubtful in the 21st century, I still like the article, interesting, you will learn something new, the dialogue between the author and Kaptsov is generally a song.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 19 March 2016 09: 33
                +2
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                stations occupying the floors of buildings turned into a suitcase with which people go on vacation

                Michael, but somehow I don’t mind that everything has its development! Please read my comments and Oleg’s comments, what’s the conversation about?

                Quote: saturn.mmm
                I work in telecommunications

                I gave the fleet 12 years and I assure you that the ship switch is very different from the domestic one, although it would seem that the first and second turn on an ordinary light bulb. Ship equipment and fittings have their own specifics, so if you brought a suitcase to the combat post and connected it to the launchers, do not be surprised that your suitcase will stop working in a week. bully at least from the fact that it is corny ship rats gnawing hi
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 19 March 2016 19: 35
                  0
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Ship equipment and fittings have their own specifics

                  We also have our own specifics, it’s just that they make the houses gentle, that connects the cities very armored (of course, the armor is different from Kaptsov’s armor)
                  Here in the picture is the main fiber-optic cable, the protection is a braid of steel wire, in addition to rats, we also have beavers trying a cable for a tooth.
      2. Locksmith
        Locksmith 18 March 2016 13: 20
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And after that they will fill in here about the difficulties of placing computers on ships

        I think the author told me quite specifically, rockets are much larger than shells and take up a lot of space, let's follow your logic and hang on 300V all of the ammunition of the division at once, then we’ll laugh together wink
      3. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 18 March 2016 14: 37
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        C-300 computer equipment climbed onto a pair of mobile chassis.

        45 again! how many mobile chassis are the s-300 air defense systems? a pair is two pieces. Yes, even in the photo, where 300v is clearly not two cars! it is impossible with such neglect the numbers!
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Snow, rain, heat of the Hemeimim air base.

        is it all at heimeim airbase? what are the difficult conditions there ... by the way, 300v is not there, there are other complexes.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And after that they will fill in here about the difficulties of placing computers on ships
        Drive the computer in a car (naturally turned off) and on a boat in layered water. not a couple of hours, but a year old - another. then turn it on.
      4. The comment was deleted.
  3. Walking
    Walking 18 March 2016 08: 21
    +11
    It is written more deliberately than in the works of Oleg Kaptsov.
    1. itvs
      itvs 18 March 2016 11: 38
      +9
      I agree. Kaptsov has a love of alternative history, and there is absolutely no attempt to understand the logic of the customer (Navy) and the designer. Polyakov is based on an analysis of boundary conditions. Definitely +
  4. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 18 March 2016 08: 43
    +3
    the famous leader of “Tashkent” with a full displacement of 4175 tons and a length of 133 meters (why not a modern frigate?)

    The peculiarity of the legendary "Tashkent" was extremely high speed. which modern frigates never dreamed of
    43,5 node = 80 kilometers per hour !!!

    Speed ​​bought at a huge price
    the power of EU Tashkent - 130 000 hp, which twice as much power EU modern frigate Gorshkov
    the frigate has a high-performance modern CADAG, 2 diesel engine + afterburner GTE

    To ensure maximum speed, the insides of "Tashkent" represented one large power plant
    Tashkent EA - layered, with alternating engine and boiler rooms, with 50-meter propeller shafts
    4 boiler and 2 GTZA, each consisted of three turbines (high and low pressure).

    So the question "what is not a modern frigate" sounds like a ridiculous joke over a heroic ship.

    Gorshkov, ~ 60 thousand hp, 29-30 knots, one and a half times slower than Tashkent
    1. Alex_59
      18 March 2016 09: 22
      +7
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The peculiarity of the legendary "Tashkent" was extremely high speed.

      Tashkent is an example. Many parallels can be cited, only there is no time to spend time on this. For example, the English frigates drowned in the Falkland War (who urgently need anti-ballistic armor, in your opinion) are smaller in size and displacement than the destroyers of the WWII era Gearing. Something I can’t recall on the latest bulletproof armor.

      About GEM I did not understand why this opus, and even with pictures. What Tashkent and Gorshkov looks like, I know, it’s not necessary to post them.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 18 March 2016 10: 03
        -1
        Quote: Alex_59
        About GEM did not understand why this opus

        Tashkent has completely different load items

        ship 80-year-old, with hypertrophied power plant
        What is not a modern frigate?))
        Quote: Alex_59
        For example, English frigates drowned in the Falkland War (who urgently need missile defense, in your opinion), are smaller in size and displacement than the destroyers of the WWII era Gearing

        I didn’t write this, you yourself came up with

        My thought has always been expressed clearly: a modern 15-ton warship with "stuffing" worth $ 3-4 billion.
        wrote about its design and layout more than once
        1. Alex_59
          18 March 2016 10: 13
          +8
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Tashkent has completely different load items

          Which others? Spread it out, let's see.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          modern warship 15 thousand tons with "stuffing" worth 3-4 billion dollars.
          Sea armored, blind, deaf and armored. smile
          Which fleet needs such a ship and for what purposes can you describe?
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 18 March 2016 10: 23
            -1
            Quote: Alex_59
            Which others? Spread it out, let's see.

            Do not fool around. double-boiler boiler turbine power
            Quote: Alex_59
            Sea armored, blind, deaf

            Did I write somewhere about the rejection of the radar?
            Quote: Alex_59
            which fleet needs such a ship and for what purposes can you describe?

            Any fleet who can afford an ocean zone ship with air defense / missile defense and other modern weapons
            at the cost of filling 3-4 billion, it is reasonable to spend 100-150 million on armor protection. At least, he now will not burn from the wreckage of a downed anti-ship missile.
            At the cost of minimum cost, combat stability is increased significantly

            for all the same tasks that modern ships perform
            1. Alex_59
              18 March 2016 10: 30
              +4
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Do not fool around. double-boiler boiler turbine power

              Table loads Tashkent in the studio.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Did I write somewhere about the rejection of the radar?

              Yes, I wrote, here: http://topwar.ru/90751-nelzya-bronirovat-sovremennyy-korabl.html
              I quote: A modern ship is capable of performing most tasks without radar.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Any fleet who can afford an ocean zone ship with air defense / missile defense

              Anyone - which one? Specifically. Russian? Chinese? American? Japanese? Belarusian?
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 18 March 2016 10: 51
                +1
                Quote: Alex_59
                Yes, I wrote, here: http://topwar.ru/90751-nelzya-bronirovat-sovremennyy-korabl.html
                I quote: A modern ship is capable of performing most tasks without radar.

                There we talk about the consequences of combat damage

                Initially - a complete set: a centimeter radar for detecting NLCs paired with an S-band search volume radar. Optional IR tracking system type sagem Vampir
                Quote: Alex_59
                Russian? Chinese? American? Japanese? Belarusian?

                Of the listed ships for the 4 billion, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and China can allow it. In the short term, India. In the distant - such a destroyer may appear in the Russian Federation
                1. Alex_59
                  18 March 2016 11: 48
                  +8
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Initially - a complete set: a centimeter radar for detecting NLCs paired with an S-band search volume radar.
                  Armored?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Of the listed ship for 4 billion can allow the United States, Japan, South Korea

                  Against whom is such power? Grenada by storm to take? Shell Libya?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  China
                  Against Taiwan, huh? Ah, are Taiwan harnessing the USA? Nuclear winter...
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  In the short term, India

                  To begin with, it is necessary to undergo retraining on the topic "how not to drown the newest submarine at the berth." The Indians will obviously threaten the PRC with their battleships. Well, at least something vaguely reminiscent of reality. OK, let the Indians build with the Chinese! Go to them urgently!
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  In the distant - such a destroyer may appear in the Russian Federation
                  God forbid us from such misfortune! Amen.
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 19 March 2016 06: 51
                    0
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Against whom is such power?

                    The usual missile destroyer of the first quarter of the 21 century

                    from missile defense to the Tomahawks and fire support
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    God forbid us from such misfortune! Amen.

                    Are you against building a promising destroyer in Russia?
                    What kind of person are you))
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    And with Tashkent, why?

                    Power output superior to Zamvolt
                    1. Alex_59
                      19 March 2016 16: 43
                      +1
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      The usual missile destroyer of the first quarter of the 21 century
                      Your answer did not add to my understanding against whom such a powerful ship the United States needs. If there is no clear answer, I don’t understand at all why such a thing is needed. Let’s make an armored monster in the aircraft carrier’s hull with 1000 UVPU and 40 gun mounts from Zavolvt, let the armor be 400 mm. And let's call it the usual missile destroyer of the first quarter of the 21 century.

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Are you against building a promising destroyer in Russia?
                      I am against projection and window dressing. It is necessary to build something that will bring real benefits. Why do we need a destroyer, when we minesweepers and TFR have not yet begun to build in the right amount - I do not understand. I don’t want a repetition of the 41 year, when it turned out that we had built cruisers and destroyers for which there are no goals, but there is a lot of work for minesweepers and TFR, and we have neither one nor the other.

                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Power output superior to Zamvolt
                      Yulite. You said that Tashkent has some atypical load items. This is a statement that requires proof, otherwise it's like in the song of Leningrad about a healthy lifestyle - "I'll tell you in front of the people, a healthy lifestyle is generally ....!" Moreover, I do not deny that in Tashkent, indeed, the power plant may weigh a lot, but in order to establish this fact, a table of loads is needed. I don't see her, you don't have her. So your claim is not proven.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 21 March 2016 06: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        against whom such a powerful ship need the United States.

                        ask the us about it

                        4 billion destroyers discharged into series
                        DDG-123, 124, 125
                        Burke subseries 3
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Why do we need a destroyer, when we minesweepers and TFR have not yet begun to build in the right amount - I do not understand.

                        zonal air defense / missile defense system in open marine areas
                        satellite interception at the DOE
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        I don’t deny that Tashkent really can have a power plant weighing a lot, but to establish this fact, you need a load table

                        Distinguish black from white

                        It is all - one large engine, a completely atypical layout for modern frigates (in which the power plant has greater efficiency and half the power)
                2. Alex_59
                  18 March 2016 11: 53
                  +4
                  And with Tashkent, why? Drain again?
        2. Operator
          Operator 18 March 2016 23: 02
          0
          Oleg, be consistent: lower the hull of your ship under water, and on the surface leave only a superstructure with a radar - all RCCs will go to the horizon, do not go to the fortuneteller.
    2. Cro-Magnon
      Cro-Magnon 19 March 2016 12: 14
      0
      And RCC is not all the same 45 or 30 knots the speed of the target ?! Or, from your point of view, the future is for artillery and armored ships ... then yes, maneuver and speed are EVERYTHING!
  5. common man
    common man 18 March 2016 08: 47
    -1
    Quote: "The obvious underload of modern ships is also visible. With the same length and width, they have a noticeably lower displacement and draft. The designers have not used up the load reserves in full. It is quite possible to load the Slava RCC with an additional 1500 tons,"
    That is, it turns out that it is quite possible to spend 1000 tons to strengthen the structural protection of the case without much damage?
    Given that the armor occupies negligible volumes, as an increase in the volume of modern ships can impede the availability of reservations.
    And the second one. I agree, the first copies of missile weapons were very bulky. And the rockets are big and clumsy, located mostly on the deck. And computers are bulky. Now the situation is changing in the other direction. Rockets in vertical underdecks, computers the size of a smartphone. The outlines of the ships return to the old, compact. Examples, the same Zumwalt, our latest corvettes and frigates, others made by stealth technology. The only overall structure on the ship are radars. But the destruction of radars will reduce the combat capabilities of the ship, but will not affect survivability issues. And this is probably the most important thing.
    1. Alex_59
      18 March 2016 09: 52
      +7
      Quote: man in the street
      That is, it turns out that it is quite possible to spend 1000 tons to strengthen the structural protection of the case without much damage?

      Undoubtedly. (True, I did not consider stability issues if there are no stop factors for this part) I am not an opponent of armor. I am for it. It's just that the thickness of this armor is ANTI-SHatter. It can be implemented and NEEDED. It will not save from a direct hit, but minimizing the effects of a close explosion is an excellent tool.
      Quote: man in the street
      Given that the armor occupies negligible volumes, as an increase in the volume of modern ships can impede the availability of reservations.

      Armor, of course, does not take up volumes - the density of steel is 7800 kg / m3. The thing is that the volumes of vital premises that need protection have increased.
      Quote: man in the street
      I agree, the first copies of missile weapons were very bulky. And the rockets are big and clumsy, located mostly on the deck. And computers are bulky. Now the situation is changing in the other direction. Rockets in vertical underdecks, computers the size of a smartphone. The outlines of the ships return to the old, compact.

      Computers, of course, with a smartphone, yes. But the density of propellant rocket engines did not become higher. In S-300 air defense systems, the main volume is occupied by PU missiles. Of course, promising air defense systems will be more compact, but they will not be able to shrink to the volumes of artillery cellars and towers.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 March 2016 10: 55
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        But the density of propellant rocket engines did not become higher. In the S-300, the main volume is occupied by PU missiles. Of course, promising air defense systems will be more compact, but they will not be able to shrink to the volumes of artillery cellars and towers.

        By the way, speaking of the artillery cellars ... 127-mm long-range sub-caliber projectile from Otto Melaro in uncontrolled and guided versions.
        For the controlled one, the inertial is corrected according to the ZhPS, but the installation of a passive infrared seeker is possible. A semi-active laser is also placed on the land version.
      2. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 18 March 2016 14: 49
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        In the S-300, the main volume is occupied by PU missiles. Of course, promising air defense systems will be more compact, but they will not be able to shrink to the volumes of artillery cellars and towers.

        there is one point that it’s almost impossible to shrink - the personnel. Yes, it is possible to reduce the number of operators by introducing automated control systems that are impossible, but all the same drugs will consume a very decent percentage of the volume (and, accordingly, the mass) of air defense systems. plus it is necessary to take into account that the spread over the area of ​​the complex will increase the combat survivability - not to cover the entire complex with one missile. yes, when all RLOiN weapons are disabled, the complex will not be able to shoot, however, it is possible to include the surviving units in another calculation.
      3. common man
        common man 18 March 2016 18: 49
        +2
        Quote: Alex_59
        Computers, of course, with a smartphone, yes. But the density of propellant rocket engines did not become higher.

        I took it off guard.
        S-75.year 1957. Maximum range of destruction of targets: 29 - 34 km. Starting weight: 2300 kg. Warhead mass: 200 kg.
        S-400. year 1997. 48N6E3 / 48N6-2 / 48N6DM rocket. range - 250 km. mass - 1800-1900 kg. weight warhead - 180 kg.
        Probably still something has changed during this time?
        1. Alex_59
          18 March 2016 19: 10
          +3
          Quote: man in the street
          Probably still something has changed during this time?

          If you are talking about a spasmodic increase in range, then the methods for bringing the rocket to the target have changed. Due to this, the increase in range at times. In the rocket itself, a radical innovation that allowed to reduce the occupied volumes was the introduction of a folding wing and rudders, the transition to the launch directly from the cellar. The rocket itself, in principle, did not acquire anything new. The electronics compartment has become a bit more compact. The densities of the warhead and engine (and this is 70-80% of the mass and volume of the rocket) remained the same. Therefore, of course, C-300 is more compact than C-75. And Redoubt-Poliment is even more compact. However, the emerging miniaturization is used to increase ammunition. After all, pay attention that the cell size of the UVPU was not reduced. Instead, they chose to leave it unchanged, but load four 48X6 missiles into it instead of one 9Н96. Those. ammunition increased 4 times while maintaining volumes under UVPU unchanged.
    2. Forest
      Forest 18 March 2016 10: 11
      +3
      Armor takes at least a very small amount, but its density is huge. If you take a tank for example, the bulk is armor, although if you calculate the volumes, it takes up a small% of the car, and this is taking into account that in armored vehicles they grab space for every centimeter. Computers now also take up a lot of space - this is not a laptop, there you need to process a lot of information. If you put the radars out of action, then the ship will generally become a simple training ground, which will be rolled out with a couple of volleys of missiles, or, at worst, aviation.
  6. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 18 March 2016 09: 51
    +1
    Modern ships need large volumes to accommodate weapons and equipment. And these volumes in comparison with the armored ships of the Second World War have grown significantly.

    All your examples are 58, 1134, 1164
    these are not modern ships
    Next time, pick other examples. Gorshkov, FREMM, type45, Desen provinsen
    we don’t need to consider ships half a century ago if literally everything has changed since then

    From modern they differ:
    a) layout (compare the shape and dimensions of the fremm and 1134 add-ons)
    b) the placement of weapons (beam PU, placing weapons on the deck)
    b) obsolete radar and SLA (rotating antenna posts, additional radar target illumination)
    c) energy (instead of turbines - boilers, in some cases electric transmission)
    d) the number of crews
    e) dimensions and mass of computer systems

    Battle post SAM Talos, 1959 - the same age as the national "Volna"
    You yourself are not ashamed to pass off such rubbish as "modern ships" and conclude that "volumes have increased significantly"

    For the sake of interest - consider in your next article how the capacity and dimensions of the PU changed during the transition from the beam Mk.26 to the UVP.



    Check out the modern ship, De Seeen Provinsen
    Long-range SAM, radar with AFAR, reaches space
    1. Alex_59
      18 March 2016 09: 54
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Next time, pick other examples.

      I do not need advisers, thanks. Goodbye. wink
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 18 March 2016 10: 26
        +3
        Quote: Alex_59
        I do not need advisers, thanks. Goodbye.

        This is not advice, this is a direct indication of your mistake.
        calculations do not make sense if you take freaks from the 60s and pass them off as "modern ships"






        From modern they differ:
        a) layout (compare the shape and dimensions of the fremm and 1134 add-ons)
        b) the placement of weapons (beam PU, placing weapons on the deck)
        b) obsolete radar and SLA (rotating antenna posts, additional radar target illumination)
        c) energy (instead of turbines - boilers, in some cases electric transmission)
        d) the number of crews
        e) dimensions and mass of computer systems
        1. 27091965
          27091965 18 March 2016 11: 51
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          This is not advice, this is a direct indication of your mistake.
          calculations do not make sense if you take freaks from the 60s and pass them off as "modern ships"


          As we would not like to leave the "freaks" from the 60s and admire modern ships, this is not possible. Since in those years in the United States, on the initiative of the UK, a fundamentally new method of designing ships was developed as an integrated system "ship-weapon", consisting of a number of less complex subsystems united into a single whole by the ship's hull, which received the name "Integrated" (Integrate) or "System" design (System Design).
          The design of ship subsystems is carried out in accordance with their functional significance and with comprehensive consideration of the relationship with other subsystems. This should be the basis for increasing efficiency, reliability, reducing the weight and overall characteristics of the subsystems and the system as a whole.
          Designing a ship as a system takes into account the change in the nature of its purpose by quickly and not costly replacing the functional elements (blocks) of a number of subsystems that ensure the corresponding qualities of the system.
          Without these "freaks", modern ships may not have appeared in the way in which we see them now.
          Unfortunately, we began to use this design system later.
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 March 2016 14: 36
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          calculations do not make sense if you take freaks from the 60s and pass them off as "modern ships"

          This is from when it pr.1134 and 1164 became freaks? They have always been considered very successful examples of ship architecture. Add-ons pr.1134 is much more compact than add-ons of the same De Zeven sagged. Antenna posts are more bulky, yes, but completely different factors play a role here.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 18 March 2016 20: 46
        +2
        Quote: Alex_59
        I do not need advisers, thanks. Goodbye.

        Is that how they argue? You also need to be able to get out of the battle!
        Especially on the site, as on the lists: for whom the last word was left - he won ...
        ("Only old men go to battle", Mr. Titorenko: "Weak fellow!")
        1. Alex_59
          18 March 2016 22: 02
          +10
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Is that how they argue? You also need to be able to get out of the battle!
          We have no fight here. We have banging through thick steel armor here. Inside Oleg, outside all the rest. Sometimes this tapping begins to bother with its uniformity. The same rhythms tapping the hand will get tired. It’s easier to leave your opponent inside the reserved volume.
          Well, if the public wants to.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          calculations do not make sense if you take freaks from the 60s and pass them off as "modern ships"
          Who are the freaks? Xnumxth freak? 58 a freak? They are handsome. But your chisel without add-ons and masts is a real freak.
          About obsolescence. 1164 - an obsolete ship? Pardon me, but he is the same age as Ticonderoga, whose technologies are alive on Arleigh Burkes and are still on the conveyor belt. And 1164 itself is not modern? Is the S-300 not modern? Gas turbine power plant with TUK? Is the Ak-130 not modern? Yes, "Slava" is not fresh, but it cannot be called old either.
          Further. The calculations make sense. I brought the ships of the same length and width into the table - TKR Algeri,, TKR Zara, Glory. Who can be put in a row with them from super-modern ships? And nobody. Everything is substantially smaller, and therefore the comparison will be incorrect. The same applies to 1144 and Alaska - they are very close in size, but newer 1144 cruisers of this size are not in nature.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          a) layout (compare the shape and dimensions of the fremm and 1134 add-ons)
          What is the practical benefit of such a comparison? Fremm needs to be compared with something armored from the WWII era to understand how much armor is possible on a FREMM-sized ship. Well, what armored monsters can be found with dimensions 137x19?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          b) the placement of weapons (beam PU, placing weapons on the deck)
          And then the beam PU? The girder launchers had the same ammunition cellar under the upper deck. I did not offer to book beam PU.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          b) obsolete radar and SLA (rotating antenna posts, additional radar target illumination)

          The rotating antenna posts are a stone in the S-300 RPN, apparently. Well, is the English Darring type 45 old or new? It has a rotating radar. And our 22350 has a Fourke on the top rotating and "Monolith".

          and so on. Laziness honestly press the keys. There will be no result - the opponent will not change his mind.
          1. Operator
            Operator 18 March 2016 23: 12
            +1
            The most important argument against the alleged obsolescence of large internal volumes is the appearance of the ships that have just entered service.

            Although, according to your opponent, this is just evidence that malicious shipbuilders are trying to build hangars filled exclusively with air on the deck - in agreement with customers, the prices of modern ships are proportional to the cubic capacity of superstructures laughing
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 18 March 2016 14: 29
      +5
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

      For the sake of interest - consider in your next article how the capacity and dimensions of the PU changed during the transition from the beam Mk.26 to the UVP.


      Well, how has it changed. Under the girder PU there were vertical drum or conveyor magazines for missiles and feed systems. Now the above-deck part has disappeared (it has been replaced by PU covers with actuators), but gas vents and, often, loading systems have appeared.
  7. castle
    castle 18 March 2016 10: 22
    +3
    Question. What armor can withstand the impact of a hard-core hypersonic RCC at speeds of at least 4M? Even if the rocket has only a solid core, the action of this core (a mechanical effect that will entail a fragmenting effect, the resulting temperature) behind the armor will be like an artillery shell explosion with great power in TNT equivalent.
    1. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 18 March 2016 10: 59
      +2
      the core is not needed - the RCC engine is solid enough to pierce the sides
    2. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 18 March 2016 14: 55
      +3
      Theoretically, depleted uranium armor. very fat. as theoretically as active, as in tanks (the current ship itself will sink after this BABAHA). but in practice - only active protection in the form of anti-ballistic missiles and, of course, the main thing is not to let them aim and fly. Well, and a small point, a lot of talk about armor, but what if the RCC attack is out of the water? or if it will be a torpedo? or mine?
  8. le-s-ha
    le-s-ha 18 March 2016 10: 37
    +1
    Thank you for the article. There would be more such materials on VO and less politics. I want to add that the volumes were also eaten for all sorts of "nonsense" like many kilometers of electrical wiring, which requires space not only for its own placement, but space for maintenance and repair
  9. Per se.
    Per se. 18 March 2016 10: 46
    +2
    In part, all of this is explainable: almost all modern military shipbuilding was faced with the fact that the many times increased required volumes for deploying modern weapons and technical equipment literally squeezed out their combat posts from the corps
    Yes, this is a fact, and this is a strong argument, but if we are talking about the first rockets and the first computers on ships. At one time, I was deeply impressed by a visit to a computing center, where computers were the size of a room. Now, what took up a lot of square meters is inferior in functionality to a smartphone, which most people have in their pockets. Much has become more compact, both vertical launch rockets and electronics itself. Much has become easier thanks to alloys, composites, new technologies, including in the field of armor. Why do these arguments remain from the early 60s of the last century? One can recall the destroyers from World War II, which actually had no armor, but the displacement of modern destroyers was equal to the displacement of light cruisers of the same World War II. Finally, how did a heavy nuclear-powered cruiser of the Orlan project, comparable to the largest battleships of World War II, find itself practically without armor at all, despite the fact that the anti-ship missile system is not stronger than the armor-piercing shell of the main caliber of battleships? Here, one more "vigorous" argument, nuclear weapons, from which there is no escape ... We have what we have, wars are going on, the fleet is constantly in business, and ships are designed according to the dogmas and capabilities of the last century.
    1. Alex_59
      18 March 2016 11: 40
      +7
      Quote: Per se.
      Why do these arguments remain from the beginning of the 60 of the last century?
      Because the density of the rocket never got higher than the density of an artillery shot. The volume occupied by C-300F is certainly less than the volume of the first marine air defense systems. But it is still more than the volumes allocated for anti-aircraft artillery on comparable WWII ships in size.
      Quote: Per se.
      the displacement of modern destroyers was equal to the displacement of light cruisers of the same World War II.
      Quite right. But the armor of WWII light cruisers can hardly be called anti-cannon-proof. It was essentially a local booking. Citadel of very small area 80-127 mm thick, art. cellars, AU GK. And that's all. On Cleveland, even long-range anti-aircraft guns had only splinter protection. All this can be revived on modern ships, only the power of the anti-ship missile warhead has grown significantly in comparison with the filling of artillery shells. Cleveland could survive dozens of hits from high-explosive shells filled with 2-3 kg of explosives. But will it survive the detonation of an anti-ship missile warhead with an explosive weight of 150-200 kg? Even without breaking through the armor.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 18 March 2016 13: 35
        +4
        Quote: Alex_59
        The volume occupied by C-300F is certainly less than the volume of the first marine air defense systems. But it is still more than the volumes allocated for anti-aircraft artillery on comparable WWII ships in size.

        How to say, Alexey. If we talk about the S-300F, this is a complex of relatively large ships, then anti-aircraft artillery from 20-40 mm machine guns to 127 mm station wagons must be compared in a complex manner. Ship artillery, all its heavy iron, from the numerous guns themselves to platforms and towers with ammunition and armor, fire control systems, are unlikely to be lighter than the "aluminum" cans of missiles, together with containers.
        Quote: Alex_59
        But the armor of the light cruisers of WWII can hardly be called bulletproof.
        Why is it difficult? Do you not know about the battle at the mouth of the La Plata, where a pair of British light cruisers and one heavy (only because of the 203 mm cannons, with the same armor as the light cruisers), fought against a German raider, "pocket battleship "," Admiral Graf Spee ". The armor on the light cruisers was not superfluous at all. Of course, it was not intended against battles with battleships, and now not all ships are armed with heavy anti-ship missiles such as the well-known Granite. There is also an Exocet anti-ship missile that was actively used in the war for the Falklands, and it is possible and necessary to have protection against such missiles. You say that "Cleveland" would have survived only high-explosive shells, but against high-explosive shells, as the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905 showed, even armor of 51 mm was effective. Japanese kamikazes on the Zero, with explosives over 150-200 kg, were not very effective against armor, since there was one high-explosive effect, without armor-piercing. How many types of modern anti-ship missiles in their ultralight hulls have armor-piercing qualities? I, in a commentary to your previous article, recalled about the army body armor, and so, if you immediately state about an armor-piercing bullet, and even 12,7 mm, there is no point in a body armor. Only, not all bullets are large-caliber, not all armor-piercing, finally, there is simply a need for protection from fragments. The same can be said about "body armor" for ships. If we say about nuclear weapons, well, Democratic guys, then everything is useless here. One can argue for a long time, but, in my humble opinion, "nothing" in protection can be better, especially when it comes to large surface ships such as "Moscow" or "Peter the Great".
        1. Alex_59
          18 March 2016 13: 51
          +7
          Quote: Per se.
          Ship artillery, all its heavy iron, from the numerous guns themselves to platforms and towers with ammunition and armor, fire control systems, are unlikely to be lighter than the "aluminum" cans of missiles, together with containers.

          Duck I talked about volume, not about weight! Of course, they will not be easier, but the volumes will be less.
          Quote: Per se.
          Why is it difficult? Do you not know about the battle at the mouth of the La Plata, where a pair of British light cruisers and one heavy (only because of the 203 mm cannons, with the same armor as the light cruisers) fought against a German raider, "pocket battleship “Graf Spee.” The armor on light cruisers was well worth it.
          At max. distances justified from the BB shells at the end, but as far as I remember Spee of these cruisers still made a sieve.
          Quote: Per se.
          There is also an Exocet anti-ship missile that was actively used in the war for the Falklands, and it is possible and necessary to have protection against such missiles.
          Duck is already there. We must be able to use all of this wisely. At distant approaches - intercepting air defense systems, jamming electronic warfare, maneuvering to reduce the silhouette, small-caliber artillery and if nothing helped - local booking, as you rightly recalled, is on Berka. This is just enough above the roof to protect against those rocket salvos that you may encounter in practice. If the armor is made in more serious volumes, then this means an increase in displacement, an increase in dimensions, an increase in the required size of slipways, a decrease in the speed of construction, a decrease in the number of ships in the series. A big series is needed. The US Navy will not exchange 90 EM-RKR for 20-30 armored heavy cruisers for the sake of booking them from possible attacks from all sorts of Libya-Iraq.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 18 March 2016 19: 56
            +2
            Quote: Alex_59
            We must be able to use all of this wisely. At distant approaches - intercepting air defense systems, interfering with electronic warfare, maneuvering to reduce the silhouette, small-caliber artillery and if all else fails - local booking, as you rightly recalled, is available on Berke. This is just enough above the roof to protect against those rocket salvos that you may encounter in practice. If the armor is made in more serious volumes, then this means an increase in displacement, an increase in dimensions, an increase in the required size of slipways, a decrease in the speed of construction, a decrease in the number of ships in the series. A big series is needed. The U.S. Navy will not exchange 90 EM-RKR for 20-30 armored heavy cruisers for the sake of booking them from possible attacks from all kinds of Libya-Iraq.

            good I absolutely agree with this paragraph. The "shell-armor" confrontation of the era of artillery ships was transformed into a "missile - air defense system" confrontation of modern missile systems. This must be taken for granted. It's just that some upart don't want to accept it in any way, which gives rise to various confrontations already in verbal form on the site lol hi
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 19 March 2016 07: 24
              +3
              Quote: Rurikovich
              It’s just that some of the bastards don’t want to accept it

              hi We welcome Andrey, the most interesting thing is that some stubborn people understand everything perfectly, but the painful desire to look smarter than others (remember how at school, there was probably a kind of upstart in every class who constantly raised his hand and shouted II, I can!) someone else's opinion as true.
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 19 March 2016 07: 45
                0
                Quote: Serg65
                someone else's opinion as true.

                Good morning. And this is the essence of human nature. wink The question is pure psychology. Here I agree with you hi
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 18 March 2016 21: 14
      +4
      Quote: Per se.
      as a heavy nuclear cruiser of the Orlan project, commensurate with the largest battleships of World War II, found itself practically without armor at all,

      1144 has an 100mm armored citadel reactor compartment.
      Quote: Per se.
      that RCC is not stronger than the armor-piercing shell of the main caliber of battleships

      The statement is controversial, since everything depends on the speed of the target, the weight and type of warheads.
      At your leisure, count the kinetic energy of the "Mosquito" ... Entertaining arithmetic turns out!
      Quote: Per se.
      wars are on, the fleet is constantly in business, and ships are being designed according to the dogma and capabilities of the last century.

      Well, my friend, here you are absolutely wrong! Robotization, modular schemes, new principles of maintenance and movement, unmanned aerial vehicles (BPA and UAV), and of course protection against EMP and LO! Well and other damaging factors YaV!
      And this is not the whole gentleman's set of shipbuilders-designers!
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 19 March 2016 17: 38
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        1144 has an 100mm armored citadel reactor compartment.

        By the way, this armored citadel has another function - radiation protection.
  10. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 18 March 2016 11: 02
    -3
    The first article was more interesting, in this author it’s just over the ears for the reasons for canceling a reservation. If the author had ever served on a ship, he would have been well aware of the fact that all the basic control systems for both the ship itself and the weapons are in the citadel. in principle, it’s not difficult to book. But again, the ship is not a tank, you can’t book it differentially. Complete booking is expensive and difficult, and also in principle ineffective against modern weapons. Different types of sensors (radar, sonars, optical stations ) are not subject to reservation, and with their loss the ship definitely loses value as a combat unit. The time of artillery duels irrevocably passed.
  11. DesToeR
    DesToeR 18 March 2016 11: 22
    -4
    Quote: Dimon19661
    The time of artillery duels has irrevocably passed

    ... and the time has come for rocket duels. What changed?
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 18 March 2016 11: 24
      +1
      Control, guidance, distance ... Continue?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 March 2016 11: 30
        0
        Quote: Dimon19661
        Control, guidance, distance ... Continue?

        What's the problem?
        Management - radar and external target designation.
        Guidance - modern systems for monitoring the position of the barrel in space and modern stabilization systems.
        Range - up to 120 km. guided projectile.
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 18 March 2016 12: 29
          0
          The position of the trunk in the space is a pearl, I have not heard this before, I have been engaged in MP-20 for more than 123 years, but I did not know this)))))
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 18 March 2016 13: 17
            +4
            Quote: Dimon19661
            STEM POSITION IN SPACE is a pearl, I have not heard this, for more than 20 years

            Uh ... Maybe it's from a lack of knowledge?

            For the first time, such a system was used by the Americans in MLRS to increase the accuracy of missiles in a salvo. There is a calculated cast line (elevation angle and turn / azimuth). There is a real position of the package in space, controlled by a system of gyroscopes. The start of the next PC is made at the moment when they coincide. This compensates for fluctuations in the package of guides during salvo.

            Attached to the naval artillery.
            The position of the barrel in space at a given time is characterized by the XYh coordinates, elevation angle, twist, and tilt angle of the pins. Ideally, plus the curvature of the barrel at the moment in three coordinates.
            At present, there are systems that allow you to track all of these characteristics with sufficient accuracy and discreteness.
            Having a calculated throw line, there is no particular problem in firing exactly at the moment it coincides with the real axis of the barrel channel at the moment.
            1. Dimon19661
              Dimon19661 18 March 2016 16: 59
              +1
              Hmm .... Wikipedia however ... Well, to improve your knowledge, there is no such thing in the anti-aircraft elevation angle. There is a corner of the place, about the do-it-up song ....
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 18 March 2016 19: 11
                +1
                Quote: Dimon19661
                Well, to improve your knowledge, there is no such thing in a defense-elevation angle. There is a corner

                Uh ... I don’t even know what to say ...

                For everyone else except your air defense, the angle between the elevation angle and the elevation angle of the target is called the angle of aim. This is due to such a trifle as the Law of universal gravitation. What finally switched to laser guns?
                1. Dimon19661
                  Dimon19661 19 March 2016 09: 53
                  0
                  And you take an interest in what it is called in the Navy, if you don’t know, then don’t need laser guns here. Believe me, there is some difference between land abbreviation and Navy, as well as a difference in aiming methods. However, it’s without mountains and ravines, however .. .
            2. Cro-Magnon
              Cro-Magnon 19 March 2016 13: 08
              0
              You described MLRS GRAD ... 60s ...
        2. aiw
          aiw 18 March 2016 22: 03
          0
          > Range - up to 120 km. guided projectile.

          There is a nuance. Missile systems firepower, mass PU, warheads and range is much better than the barrel artillery. The cost of guided missiles, all other things being equal, is also significantly better than that of an artillery shell (less overload on launch).

          And what for artillery in a duel of modern destroyers? To approach and finish off at point-blank the enemy who has moved guidance systems / ended BC?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 18 March 2016 23: 43
            0
            Quote: aiw
            Missile systems firepower, mass PU, warheads and range is much better than the barrel artillery.

            With fire performance is not a fact. For example, the most long-range gun mount 127/64 at "Otto Melar". 35 rounds per minute practical rate of fire (not technical)

            At a cost, also not a fact. Other things being equal, a shell is cheaper than a rocket, sometimes much more.

            In range - 120 km is an excellent result for supersonic anti-ship missiles. For example, the German-French newest ASURA has a range of only 30 km. more.

            The projectile, even guided, has a high probability of overcoming the ship’s air defense. Especially if you shot a series of several shells
            1. aiw
              aiw 19 March 2016 14: 25
              +1
              > With fire performance is not a fact. For example, the most long-range gun mount 127/64 at "Otto Melar". 35 rounds per minute practical rate of fire (not technical)

              From memory - we take the artillery unit of the deputy - 90 tons, 12 or something per minute. We take the marine version of the city (an approximate analogue to the mass of the shell, the first thing that came to hand) - 40 pipes, 15 tons, a salvo time of 20 seconds. Are you really a gunner? I’m just a physicist, and it’s obvious to me that since the overload (recoil) when launching the rocket is radically less, then making a rapid-fire launcher (yes, at least a la MLRS) is much easier than art. installation.


              > Cost is also not a fact. All other things being equal, a shell is cheaper than a rocket, sometimes much.

              we are now talking about sverdlovoyobnye (with art. tz) systems. And a guided projectile (ridiculously speaking about uncontrolled) is flying 120 km a priori much more expensive than a similar missile, even without taking into account the cost of launchers. The filling of the projectile must withstand enormous overloads, for that reason the projectile must have a very durable body. Yes, the efficiency of using a propellant charge in artillery is higher than that of TTRD (if not to speak about missiles with TTPVRD for example), but the cost of gunpowder is a penny in the total cost of a guided shot, and about the total cost (and weight !!!) of the whole complex I say ...

              > In terms of range, 120 km is an excellent result for supersonic anti-ship missiles. For example, the latest German-French ASURA has a range of only 30 km. more.

              And warhead 180kg. And maneuvering at the target up to 10g. And GOS and with advanced digital computers. And speed up to 3M. And the ability to install on MRK. The question is if even someone is now building trunk art. installation with similar performance characteristics, what dimensions, weight will it have, and where can it be installed?

              > A projectile, even a controlled one, has a high probability of overcoming the ship's air defense. Especially if a series of several shells was fired

              With the same mass of the complex, we will get at the same time a swarm of missiles that no artillery system can create. Compare the MLRS and the howitzer, and imagine that the MLRS gives a volley of guided missiles that are all aimed at one target.

              No, are you really a gunner? Why then are you trying to convince those present that the artillery can at least somehow compete with anti-ship missiles in an area where anti-ship missiles have long been out of competition? It is one thing to cover targets on the shore / shoot pirate junks / unarmed transports, it is another to work on modern ships with URO. If the captain of the ship with the URO turns out to be a gentleman and allows you to approach him at the firing range, then still your artillery ship will drown without having time to shoot most of its BC.
  12. Denimax
    Denimax 18 March 2016 11: 22
    0
    Now the construction of the battleships hardly anyone will bother. Previously, as it was, to sink the battleship, you needed another battleship. With the advent of torpedoes, it became possible to sink a battleship with an ordinary boat. Although torpedoes are so-so weapons, they showed more on submarines. But with the advent of missiles, the whole strategy has changed radically. The mosquito fleet immediately acquired a battleship caliber, in range and power. Incidentally, aircraft from aircraft carriers can also be considered a mosquito fleet, and the aircraft carrier was their mobile base, and they pecked to death such as Yamato. And the production of such trifles does not require directly such a very heavy structure as armadillos.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 18 March 2016 22: 54
      +2
      Quote: Denimax
      Although torpedoes are so-so weapons,

      You are wrong here. Torpedo weapons hit the ship in the underwater, the most vulnerable in terms of survivability, part of the hull. In the photo it looks something like this:
      1. Denimax
        Denimax 19 March 2016 22: 32
        0
        The speed and range of torpedoes indicates the weakness of the weapon.
        And surely a decent price, the batteries cost a lot.
        He wrote more for submarines.
  13. Army soldier2
    Army soldier2 18 March 2016 11: 35
    +4
    I have not read such a thoughtful article on VO! Thanks to the author! One of the few who proceeds from tasks rather than sacred desires to book or not to book.
  14. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 18 March 2016 11: 43
    +7
    Has anyone canceled the Joule-Lance law? With the growth of the energy (electrical) equipment of ships, the amount of heat that needs to be "removed" also increases, the volumes requiring forced ventilation grow - a gigantic problem that we had at the BS in the Persian Gulf in 1988. Along with the external heating of the hull (in the shade 55 degrees C) and the lack of cooling of the seawater (+ 30 - 35) sharply reduces both the quality of life of the crew and the operation of weapons and vehicles! You can, of course, make a "piece of iron from the village of KuKueva" in the form of an armored safe, but how to live and fight in it?
  15. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 18 March 2016 11: 58
    +1
    Personally, I am only interested in one question. Is there a reservation for the "Orlans". If there is, then all questions about the booking of modern ships disappear. If not, then I wonder how and why the armor was not installed, and then all these discussions become interesting.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 18 March 2016 12: 30
      +2
      Local is.
    2. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 18 March 2016 15: 01
      -1
      why on eagles booking?
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 18 March 2016 16: 03
        0
        For example, to protect a nuclear reactor, plus large missile cellars. In the end, this is our (and not only) largest warship, and if there wasn’t enough space and reserve for normal booking on it, then what about the rest is a trifle.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 18 March 2016 16: 18
          +1
          Here are the missile cellars and also the GKP with armor and covered. On "Kuza" there are armored side longitudinal bulkheads, moreover, composite.
          1. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 18 March 2016 18: 06
            0
            How did you know that? It’s really interesting for me, if you share the source, I will be grateful. Well, or write in more detail.
            1. 27091965
              27091965 18 March 2016 18: 57
              +2
              Quote: chunga-changa
              if you share the source, I will be grateful. Well, or write in more detail.


              "Surface structural protection (NKZ) was carried out according to the principle of shielding, composite structures (such as steel - fiberglass - steel) served as internal protective barriers. The main material of NKZ is high-strength steel with a yield point of 60 kgf / mmg. local box booking.
              For the first time in the practice of domestic aircraft carrier shipbuilding, underwater structural protection (PKZ) was used to increase the combat and operational survivability of the ship. Characteristics of unsinkability and fire and explosion safety were significantly increased. According to the results of numerous research and full-scale experiments, the depth of the onboard SCZ was taken within 4,5-5 m. Of the three longitudinal bulkheads, the second was armored (on the lead ship it was batch. That is multi-layered, on the second - monolithic).
              The unsinkability of the aircraft carrier was guaranteed when five adjacent compartments with a total length of at least 20% of the ship's length were flooded. At the same time, the freeboard to the level of the hangar deck had to remain above the water at a height of 1.8 m. This prevented the danger of flooding the hangar. "-" Soviet aircraft carriers "S. Balakin, V. Zablotsky 2007
              1. chunga-changa
                chunga-changa 18 March 2016 20: 23
                0
                We did not understand each other. I meant "Orlan" TARK project 1144. "Kuznetsov" is clearly not armored, it has different tasks and capabilities.
                1. 27091965
                  27091965 18 March 2016 22: 23
                  0
                  "Nuclear cruisers of the Kirov type" A.S. Pavlov 1997
        2. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 18 March 2016 17: 28
          0
          missile cellars will be empty by the time of the collision with the enemy's damaging factors. we take a serious adversary, right? plus layered air defense. and it’s proved that booking will not save you much. even a monster like an eagle. in a serious conflict, special warheads will be used, and in non-serious eagles there is nothing to do. I confess, I don’t remember where, but I read how the eagle project itself grew out of a simple anti-submarine ship project.
  16. Taoist
    Taoist 18 March 2016 13: 45
    +2
    Thank you for the article. About the "specific gravity" of a modern ship, it did not occur to me personally, although from the experience of service, in principle, it was possible to compare the volumes requiring protection. By the way, if there is data, it would be worth analyzing the possibilities of modern constructive protection - so I hope to read about this too ...
  17. Taoist
    Taoist 18 March 2016 23: 43
    +4
    Quote: Alex_59
    We have banging through thick steel armor here. Inside Oleg, outside all the rest. Sometimes this tapping begins to bother with its uniformity. The same rhythms tapping the hand will get tired. It’s easier to leave your opponent inside the reserved volume.


    "Stirlitz shot Mueller in the head, the bullet crumpled and bounced off ... Armor! - Guessed Stirlitz" (c) bully
  18. Operator
    Operator 19 March 2016 23: 39
    -1
    The issue of booking destroyers and cruisers was fundamentally resolved - it is planned to abandon these classes of large-sized ships and assign the tasks of naval air defense / missile defense to submarines, which become the universal weapon of the Navy.

    Technologies to hit space targets from submarines are being developed in Russia. This was stated today by the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy for Arms, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk:

    “Such technologies are really applied, and not only our scientists are working on this, but also abroad. Of course, this is one of the areas of the future armament of submarines. "

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160319/1392757971.html