Military Review

Shipboard armor in the XXI century: all aspects of the problem. Part of 3

105



Battleship of the XXI century

Despite the many problems and limitations, the installation of armor on modern ships is possible. As already mentioned, there is a weight "underload" (in the absence of free volumes), which can be used to enhance passive protection.

First you need to decide what specifically needs to be protected by armor. During the years of the Second World War, the reservation scheme pursued a very specific goal - to preserve the buoyancy of the ship when it was hit by shells. Therefore, the shell zone was booked in the area of ​​the waterline (just above and below the level of the overhead line). In addition, it is necessary to prevent the detonation of ammunition, loss of the ability to move, fire and manage it. Therefore, the GK guns, their cellars in the building, the GEM, and the control posts were carefully booked. These are the critical zones that ensure the ship’s combat capability, i.e. ability to fight: to shoot, move and not to sink.

In the case of a modern ship, everything is much more complicated. The use of the same criteria for assessing combat capability leads to bloating of volumes that are evaluated as critical.

To conduct aimed fire, the Second World War ship was sufficient to keep the gun itself and its ammunition cellars intact - it could conduct aimed fire, even when the command post was broken, the ship was immobilized, the control tower of the centralized fire control was shot down. Modern weapons less autonomous. They need target designation (either external or own), power supply and communications. This requires the ship to keep its electronics and energy for the ability to fight. Guns can be charged and aimed manually, but rockets require electricity and radar for firing. So, you need to book the hardware of the radar station and the power station in the case, as well as cable routes. But such devices as communication antennas and radar canvases cannot be booked at all.

In this situation, even if the volume of the ZUR cellar is booked, but the enemy RCC will fall into the unarmored part of the building, where, unfortunately, communications equipment or radar CU or electric generators will be located, the ship’s air defense will fail completely. This picture is fully consistent with the criteria for assessing the reliability of technical systems for its weakest element. The unreliability of the system determines its worst component. The artillery ship such components only two - guns with ammunition and GEM. And both of these elements are compact and easily protected by armor. A modern ship has many such components: radars, power stations, cable tracks, missile launchers, etc. And the failure of any of these components leads to the collapse of the entire system.

You can try to assess the stability of certain combat systems of the ship, using the method of assessing the reliability (see footnote at the end of the article). For example, take air defense long-range artillery ships of the era of WWII and modern destroyers and cruisers. Reliability will be understood as the ability of the system to continue to work in case of failure (defeat) of its components. The main difficulty here is to determine the reliability of each of the components. In order to somehow solve this problem, let us take two methods of such a calculation. The first is the equal reliability of all components (let it be 0,8). The second - reliability is proportional to their area, reduced to the total lateral area of ​​the projection of the ship.

Shipboard armor in the XXI century: all aspects of the problem. Part of 3







As we see, taking into account the relative area in the side projection of the ship, and under equal conditions, the reliability of the system decreases for all modern ships. No wonder. To disarm long-range air defense of the Cleveland cruiser, you need to either destroy all 6 AU 127-mm, or 2 KDP, or power engineering (electricity supply to KDP and AU drives). Destruction of one KDP or several AUs does not lead to complete system failure. In modern RKR type "Glory" for the complete failure of the system you need to hit either the bulk C-300F launcher with missiles, or the illumination-guidance radar, or destroy the power plant. The destroyer “Arly Burke” has higher reliability, primarily due to the separation of the ammunition set by two independent UVPUs and the similar separation of the illumination-guidance radar.

This is a very rough analysis of just one ship armament system, with many assumptions. Moreover, the armored ships are given a serious handicap. For example, all components of the reduced system of a ship of the time of WWII are armored, while in modern ships the antennas are not fundamentally protected (the probability of their defeat is higher). The role of electricity in the combat capability of WWII ships is incommensurable less, because even with the power off, it is possible to continue the fire with manual projectile feed and coarse guidance by means of optics, without centralized control from the control tower. Cellars ammunition artillery ships below the waterline, modern rocket cellars are located just below the upper deck of the hull. And so on.

In fact, the very concept of “warship” acquired a completely different meaning than in the years of the Second World War. If earlier a warship was a platform for a variety of relatively independent (self-contained) weapon components, then a modern ship is a harmonious combat organism with a single nervous system. The destruction of a ship of the times of the Second World War was local in nature - where damage is, there is failure. Everything else that does not fall into the affected area, can work and continue to fight. If a couple of ants die in an anthill - for an anthill it is the little things in life. In a modern ship, hitting the stern will almost inevitably affect what is being done on the bow. This is no longer an anthill, this is the human body, which, having lost an arm or a leg, will not die, but it will no longer be able to fight. These are the objective consequences of cultivation. weapons. It may seem that this is not a development, but a degradation. However, the armored ancestors could only shoot from guns within sight. And modern ships are universal and able to destroy targets hundreds of kilometers away. Such a qualitative leap is accompanied by certain losses, including the complication of armaments and, as a consequence, a decrease in reliability, an increase in vulnerability, and an increased sensitivity to failures.

Therefore, the role of booking in a modern ship is obviously lower than that of their artillery ancestors. If we revive the reservation, then with somewhat different goals - to prevent the immediate death of the ship when directly hit the most explosive systems, such as ammunition cellars and launchers. Such a reservation only slightly improves the combat capability of the ship, but can significantly increase its survivability. This is a chance not to fly into the air instantly, but to try to organize a struggle to save the ship. Finally, this is just a time that can allow the crew to evacuate.

The very concept of the "combat capability" of the ship has changed a lot. The modern battle is so transient and impetuous that even a brief breakdown of a ship can affect the outcome of the battle. If in battles of artillery epoch the application of significant injuries to the enemy could take hours, today it is seconds. If during the years of the Second World War a ship’s exit from a battle was almost equal to sending it to the bottom, then today a ship’s elimination from active combat can only be turning off its radar. Or, if the battle with an external control center - the interception of the aircraft (helicopter) DRLO.

Nevertheless, we will try to assess what a booking could get from a modern warship.

Lyrical digression on target designation

Evaluating the reliability of systems, I want to move away for a while from the topic of booking and raise the accompanying question of target designation for rocket weapons. As shown above, one of the weakest points of a modern ship is its radar and other antennas, whose structural protection is absolutely impossible. In this regard, and also given the successful development of active homing systems, it is sometimes proposed to completely abandon our own general-purpose radar with the transition to obtaining preliminary data on targets from external sources. For example, from a ship's helicopter ARLO or UAVs.

SAM or PKR with active seeker do not need continuous illumination of targets and they need only approximate data on the area and direction of movement of the objects being destroyed. This allows you to go to an external CU.

The reliability of the external control center as a component of the system (for example, the same air defense system) is very difficult to assess. The vulnerability of the sources of the external control center is very high - helicopters are brought together by long-range enemy air defense systems, they are opposed to EW tools. In addition, UAVs, helicopters and other sources of data on targets are dependent on the weather, they need speed and steady communication with the recipient of information. However, the author is not able to accurately determine the reliability of such systems. Conditionally accept such reliability as "no worse" than that of other elements of the system. How will the reliability of such a system change with the abandonment of its own central control center? Let us show by the example of the air defense system Arley Burk.







As you can see, the rejection of the radar-lighting guidance increases the reliability of the system. However, the exclusion from the system of its own means of detecting targets inhibits the growth of system reliability. Without the SPY-1 radar, reliability has increased by only 4%, while duplication of external central and center radars increases reliability by 25%. This suggests that a complete abandonment of its own radar is impossible.

In addition, some radar facilities of modern ships have a number of unique characteristics that are completely undesirable to lose. In Russia, there are unique radio systems of active and passive targeting for anti-ship missiles, with a horizon-wide detection range of enemy ships. This is the RLC "Titanit" and "Monolith". The detection range of the surface ship reaches their 200 and more kilometers, despite the fact that the complex antennas are not even placed on the tops of the masts, but on the roofs of the felling. Abandoning them is simply a crime, because the enemy has no such means. Possessing a similar RLC ship or coastal missile system is completely autonomous and does not depend on any external sources of information.

Possible booking schemes

Let's try to equip with armor relatively modern rocket cruiser "Glory". To do this, compare it with ships of similar size.



From the table it is clear that the RRC “Glory” can be fully loaded with an additional 1700 tons of load, which will be about 15,5% of the resulting displacement in 11 000 tons. It fully corresponds to the parameters of the cruisers of the Second World War period. And TARKR “Peter the Great” can withstand the reinforcement of armor from 4500 tons of load, which will be 15,9% of the standard displacement.

Consider possible reservation schemes.





Having booked only the most fire and explosive zones of the ship and its GEM, the armor protection thickness was reduced by almost 2 times compared to the Cleveland LCR, which was also considered not the most powerful and successful at the time of the Second World War. And this is despite the fact that the most explosive places of an artillery ship (a cellar of shells and charges) are located below the waterline and are generally not at risk of damage. In rocket ships, volumes containing tons of gunpowder are located immediately below the deck and high above the waterline.

Another scheme is possible with the protection of only the most dangerous zones with a priority of thickness. About the main belt and the power plant will have in this case to forget. We concentrate all the armor around the cellars of C-300F, RCC, 130-mm projectiles and GKP. In this case, the thickness of the armor grows to 100 mm, but the area covered with armor in the area of ​​the side projection of the ship drops to ridiculous 12,6%. RCC should be very unlucky so that she got exactly in these places.




In both booking options, the Ak-630 artillery installations and their cellars, power stations with generators, storage of ammunition and helicopter fuel, steering gear, all hardware electronics and cable routes remain completely defenseless. All this was simply absent at Cleveland, so the designers did not even think about protecting them. Getting into any unreserved area for Cleveland did not promise fatal consequences. The rupture of a couple of kilograms of armor-piercing explosives (or even a high-explosive) projectile outside the critical zones could not threaten the ship as a whole. “Cleveland” could endure more than a dozen of such hits during the long hours of battle.

With modern ships everything is different. RCC containing dozens and even hundreds of times more explosives, hitting unregistered volumes, will cause so severe injuries that the ship almost immediately loses its combat capability, even if the critical armored zones remain intact. Just one hit CRP OTN with warhead weight 250-300 kg leads to the complete destruction of the interior of the ship within 10-15 radius from the site of the explosion. This is greater than the width of the case. And, most importantly, the armored ships of the Second World War era in these unprotected areas did not have systems that directly affect the ability to conduct combat. A modern cruiser has its hardware, power stations, cable tracks, radio electronics, and communications equipment. And all this is not covered by armor! If we try to stretch the booking area and on their volumes, then the thickness of such protection will fall to completely ridiculous 20-30 mm.



However, the proposed scheme is quite viable. The armor protects the most dangerous zones of the ship from splinters and fires, close breaks. But will 100-mm steel barrier protect against direct hit and penetration of a modern ASM of the corresponding class (RTD or TN)?

The ending should ...

(*) More information about the calculation of reliability can be found here: https://ru.wikipedia.org/
Author:
105 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 21 March 2016 06: 46
    -6
    I didn’t quite understand the author why to book parts of the ship so powerfully if active means play the main defense function? It is much more logical to encircle the ship with anti-shatter armor that will protect the ship from close explosions and fragments of shot down missiles
    1. Forest
      Forest 21 March 2016 09: 49
      0
      Arly Burke has such a thing.
  2. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 21 March 2016 07: 02
    -14%
    In this situation, even if the volume of the SAM cellar is reserved, but the enemy RCC will fall into unarmored part of the building, where, unfortunately, communication equipment or radars of the control center or power generators will be located


    It never occurred to you that the central station of the CIU, electric generators, engine rooms and air-handling units with ammunition can (and should) be inside the citadel

    Communication equipment - in the pocket of every officer


    Mobile Satellite TV Dish

    This means that it is necessary to reserve the equipment of the radar and power plants in the building, as well as cable routes.

    All compact equipment inside the citadel
    For example, all components of the reduced system of a ship of the WWII era are armored, and for modern ships the antennas are not protected in principle (the probability of their defeat is higher)

    They are located so that they cannot be destroyed in one hit.

    And maybe you can explain how the RTOs of the Caspian flotilla, generally without any radars, fired at 1500 km of Syria
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 21 March 2016 07: 21
      +6
      How do you read the author’s articles? Diagonally or what?
      1. Cro-Magnon
        Cro-Magnon 22 March 2016 14: 00
        0
        They have a fundamental dispute between sword and armor! One believes that armor is a panacea for everything ... the other that the turtle is not the most protected animal ...
    2. Forest
      Forest 21 March 2016 09: 52
      0
      Only such a connection can be drowned out by an electronic warfare turntable and put on the radars the interference of an old MiG-21 with stanolev tapes. Well, the calculation of launching a missile to intercept will be so fast that you can reach the ship on foot.
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 21 March 2016 10: 34
      +4
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      And maybe you can explain how the RTOs of the Caspian flotilla, generally without any radars, fired at 1500 km of Syria

      And why is it difficult to launch missiles at fixed targets, the coordinates of which are known for almost a few days?
      If it comes to defeating unplanned targets, everything will become much more complicated: a noise-tolerant communication system and a system are needed to calculate the parameters of the most optimal missile route.
      If this is a moving target, or even more a group of goals, everything becomes even more complicated.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 21 March 2016 10: 55
        -1
        Quote: Spade
        And why is it difficult to launch missiles at fixed targets, the coordinates of which are known for almost a few days?

        What then is worried that the ship can’t shoot at all with the slightest damage to the radar
        Quote: Spade
        and a system that allows you to calculate the parameters of the most optimal missile route.


        The SWG-1 panel for the development of a flight task for ASM Harpoon
        of course, its size prevents its placement inside the citadel

        Quote: Spade
        noise immunity communication system is needed

        remote satellite dish?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 21 March 2016 11: 28
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          What then is worried that the ship can’t shoot at all with the slightest damage to the radar

          There is a huge difference between military operations at sea and the performance of tasks specific to a land-based launcher, which cannot be created due to the limitations on the INF Treaty.

          In general, RTOs, by default operating from external target designation provided by coastal infrastructure, are a bad example.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The SWG-1 panel for the development of a flight task for ASM Harpoon
          of course, its size prevents its placement inside the citadel

          In real life, everything is much more complicated for missiles with such a range. Weather on the entire route, relief on the entire route, information about the enemy and the zones of destruction of his air defense systems. And all in real time.

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          remote satellite dish?

          She alone will not be enough. Several channels, or even better, a single network of reconnaissance and target designation of the ship group, with external sources tied to it: coastal means, helicopters, aircraft and UAVs of radar and radio-technical reconnaissance, both "external" and taking off from the ships of the group, space at the end ends.

          It’s stupid to refuse radar and other reconnaissance and target designation systems. This will reduce overall system stability.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 21 March 2016 11: 33
            -1
            Quote: Spade
            In general, RTOs, by default, operating from external target designation

            Like any other ship - uses data from aviation and space satellites
            MQ-4C Triton to the rescue
            Quote: Spade
            Weather on the entire route, relief on the entire route, information about the enemy and the zones of destruction of his air defense systems. And all in real time

            The creators of SWG-1 did not know about this
            Quote: Spade
            It alone is not enough. Multiple channels

            Riper satellite drone antenna
            real-time direct and feedback channel: high-resolution TV picture, all telemetry

            Quote: Spade
            It’s stupid to refuse radar and other reconnaissance and target designation systems. This will reduce overall system stability.

            Wisely
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 21 March 2016 12: 34
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              MQ-4C Triton to the rescue

              Yes, anything. The more sources of target designation, the greater the probability of target detection, the higher the reliability and the higher the stability of the system.

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The creators of SWG-1 did not know about this

              They did not have such a task.


              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Riper satellite drone antenna
              real-time direct and feedback channel: high-resolution TV picture, all telemetry

              Communication system - the same picture as the target designation system. The more channels, including those not related to radio waves (for example, laser satellite communications), the greater the system's resistance to electronic warfare and damage to individual elements.

              Here, for example, they were wandering around the RCC ship, and he lost the opportunity to use both his radar and long-distance communications. However, there is a neighboring, undamaged ship, and there is, for example, a VHF connection with it. That is, it remains possible to use intact weapons systems.
    4. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 11: 03
      +11
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Communication equipment - in the pocket of every officer

      Attempts to tell about communication equipment to a person who have graduated for 5 years in the specialty "design of radio-electronic means" and who worked as an engineer at a long-distance communication equipment plant for XNUMX years looks very touching. wink
      Our customer was Rostelecom, Russian Railways, the Ministry of Defense and FAPSI. So I won’t even argue with you on this issue, and I’m tired of laughing, therefore, only a smile. smile
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 21 March 2016 11: 29
        -5
        Quote: Alex_59
        Attempts to talk about communication equipment to a person who has learned 5 years by profession

        I think it’s enough to live in the 21 century.

        All this equipment is now placed in your pocket, if you think otherwise, then this is strange
        Quote: Alex_59
        therefore only a smile.

        mutually

        How much max. armor weight for the ship 5000 tons?))))
        1. Alex_59
          21 March 2016 15: 35
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          I think it’s enough to live in the 21 century.

          It’s enough for you. I have no desire to convince you.
        2. Cro-Magnon
          Cro-Magnon 22 March 2016 14: 10
          0
          Cellular in your pocket and in the taiga 100km from civilization ... look at your smile! And run there with the GPS, satellite phone until the batteries run out! Oh yeah, we have the 21st century, everyone has sound batteries!
    5. spravochnik
      spravochnik 21 March 2016 12: 39
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

      For example, all components of the reduced system of a ship of the WWII era are armored, and for modern ships the antennas are not protected in principle (the probability of their defeat is higher)

      They are located so that they cannot be destroyed in one hit.


      Yeah, yeah, Gorshkova gets into the mast, and Burke in the bow superstructure and the entire radar is a big caput.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 21 March 2016 13: 12
        +2
        Quote: spravochnik
        Yeah, yeah, Gorshkova gets into the mast, and Burke in the bow superstructure and the entire radar is a big caput.

        So what? Is it critical?

        In general, I noticed a strange tendency of "spherical connotation" when discussing any weapon systems.
        In the appendix to the discussed, both "Gorshkov" and "Burke" are just an element of a system that includes not only a ship group, but everything from satellites (communications, global positioning, reconnaissance) and ending with hydroacoustic systems like SOSUS and its descendants.
        1. Operator
          Operator 21 March 2016 13: 45
          -1
          It is about protecting the ship from RCC attacks in the event of ship’s air defense / missile defense paralysis by hitting warheads / fragments in a single multifunctional radar.

          After that, the ship will be completely disabled by hitting a second, third, etc. RCC. There will be no shooting at ground / sea targets.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 21 March 2016 14: 15
            0
            Quote: Operator
            It is about protecting the ship from RCC attacks in the event of ship’s air defense / missile defense paralysis by hitting warheads / fragments in a single multifunctional radar.

            So what? There are other ships that can transmit real-time target information to the corrupted.

            Moreover, other ships are capable of hitting anti-ship missiles flying to the damaged one.
            1. Operator
              Operator 21 March 2016 15: 17
              -1
              The ship’s formation, naturally, will be attacked by a salvo of anti-ship missiles in the order of several missiles per ship.

              For example, the number of air defense / missile defense ships in the AUG order is about a dozen, and the Borey nuclear submarine mines accommodate 112 anti-ship missiles. That is, an average of 10 missiles per ship, including an aircraft carrier.

              During a volley attack of anti-ship missiles, each anti-aircraft / missile ship will be primarily fought off missiles flying into it. In this case, all ships will be attacked almost simultaneously.

              With a probability of more than 50 percent on the damaged ship, not only radars, but also other openly placed equipment such as transmitting and receiving radio antennas will be destroyed by fragments. Those. a damaged ship cannot accept target designation for its anti-aircraft missiles.

              And most importantly - with a volley attack and an attempt to carry out external target designation for anti-aircraft missiles launched from damaged ships, centralized guidance of their guidance will be required. Otherwise, an excess of anti-aircraft missiles will be aimed at one anti-ship missile. That in the conditions of short flight time and a large number of anti-ship missiles per ship, it will lead to the guaranteed defeat of all ships.

              Centralized guidance of anti-aircraft missiles of the entire ship’s formation is possible only if the operation of individual air defense / missile defense systems is deprived of their autonomy, which is not available.

              The centralized guidance of anti-aircraft missiles will require up to 10 times the performance of the computing equipment of one of the air defense / missile defense ships (which is not observed) and will make the entire defense system vulnerable to the effects of electronic warfare equipment such as an explosive electromagnetic generator onboard one of the anti-ship missiles.

              The use of electronic warfare will damage not only the radars of the AWACS aircraft and the centralized guidance vehicle, but also the radio transceivers of all the connection ships, forcing them to switch to an autonomous air defense / missile defense mode with the above consequences.

              Those. external target designation for anti-aircraft missiles is effective only in the case of single attacks of anti-ship missiles - with the United States fleet butting with Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc., but not with the fleets of Russia or China.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 21 March 2016 15: 36
                -1
                Quote: Operator
                For example, the number of air defense / missile defense ships in the AUG order is about a dozen, and the Borey nuclear submarine mines accommodate 112 anti-ship missiles. That is, an average of 10 missiles per ship, including an aircraft carrier.

                That's not a lot. Especially if we take into account a) the high detection range of anti-ship missiles due to the presence of an AWACS aircraft, b) the ability to significantly "thin out" the salvo on distant approaches by carrier-based aircraft.


                Quote: Operator
                During a volley attack of anti-ship missiles, each anti-aircraft / missile ship will be primarily fought off missiles flying into it.

                No. He will work in the air defense system of the naval group. Until the loss of control of her, which is unlikely without the total destruction of all ships


                Quote: Operator
                With a probability of more than 50 percent on a damaged ship, not only radars, but also other openly placed equipment such as radio transmitting and receiving antennas will be destroyed by fragments.

                50% chance of disabling all communication systems? Not funny.


                Quote: Operator
                And most importantly - with a volley attack and an attempt to carry out external target designation for anti-aircraft missiles launched from damaged ships, centralized guidance of their guidance will be required.

                Is this really a problem with the speed of modern computers and the huge bandwidth of communication channels?


                Quote: Operator
                Centralized guidance of anti-aircraft missiles of the entire ship’s formation is possible only if the operation of individual air defense / missile defense systems is deprived of their autonomy, which is not available.

                It's not obligatory. Dear, you are now using the Internet, your computer will stop working if it is disconnected from the network?


                Quote: Operator
                The centralized guidance of anti-aircraft missiles will require up to 10 times the performance of the computing equipment of one of the air defense / missile defense ships (which is not observed) and will make the entire defense system vulnerable to the effects of electronic warfare equipment such as an explosive electromagnetic generator onboard one of the anti-ship missiles.

                Dear, they learned to protect ship equipment from EMP in the last century. Faraday cage and input filters.


                Quote: Operator
                The use of electronic warfare will damage not only the radars of the AWACS aircraft and the centralized guidance vehicle, but also the radio transceivers of all the connection ships, forcing them to switch to an autonomous air defense / missile defense mode with the above consequences.

                How interesting. And what kind of electronic warfare equipment do you plan to use, given the presence of carrier-based carrier-based aircraft?


                Quote: Operator
                Those. external target designation for anti-aircraft missiles is effective only in the case of single attacks of anti-ship missiles - with the United States fleet butting with Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc., but not with the fleets of Russia or China.

                Absolutely unfounded conclusion
                1. Operator
                  Operator 21 March 2016 16: 20
                  -1
                  I will answer in your style laughing

                  Respected:

                  1. At the moment, the possibilities of naval air defense / missile defense are being considered. The issue of thinning salvos of anti-ship missiles with carrier-based aircraft at distant approaches requires a separate consideration for the case of ACG itself. For other types of ship formations it is not relevant.

                  2. It's not about management (loose concept) air defense / missile defense system of the ship’s formation, but about a hypothetical centralized guidance of all anti-aircraft missiles of the ship’s formation in order to avoid duplication, troining, etc. their launches on one attacking RCC. Where can I find this solution?

                  3. For the online transmission of the coordinates of the attacking missiles, broadband communication channels with special equipment are required, and not any transmitting antenna.

                  4. The problem is different - at the moment there is no air defense / missile ship with ten times the power of computing equipment and, therefore, the required cubic capacity in it.

                  5. Centralized guidance of missiles of a ship’s formation, by definition, requires disabling for this period the autonomous operation of ship’s air defense / missile defense systems.

                  6. In addition to radio transmitting equipment, there are also radio transmitting antennas of broadband communication, which are not protected from electromagnetic radiation. To restart them, it takes several minutes, which is more than the flight time of supersonic anti-ship missiles flying out from under the radio horizon at a low altitude.

                  7. The electronic warfare system is announced - an explosive electromagnetic generator EMR installed on board one of the anti-ship missiles instead of warheads. Again, the AUG attack requires a separate review, our adversary will quantitatively have more KUG and convoys.

                  8. What is the name of the U.S. Navy ship intended for centralized guidance of anti-aircraft missiles of the ship’s compound?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 21 March 2016 19: 11
                    0
                    Quote: Operator
                    1. At the moment, the possibilities of naval air defense / missile defense are being considered. The issue of thinning salvos of anti-ship missiles with carrier-based aircraft at distant approaches requires a separate consideration for the case of ACG itself. For other types of ship formations it is not relevant.

                    The question of defeat AUG raised by you.


                    Quote: Operator
                    2. This is not about the control (expandable concept) of the air defense / missile defense system of the ship’s formation, but about the hypothetical centralized guidance of all anti-aircraft missiles of the ship’s formation in order to avoid duplication, troining, etc. their launches on one attacking RCC. Where can I find this solution?

                    Uh ... The fundamental need for rolling square and carrying round?
                    There are 9 tanks, there are 3 anti-tank guns. Distribute targets among the bottom guns, "they will shoot one tank at a time." Therefore, it is necessary that all three guns be controlled by one gunner ...
                    Somehow not very convincing ...

                    Quote: Operator
                    For the online transmission of the coordinates of the attacking missiles, broadband communication channels with special equipment are required, and not any transmitting antenna.

                    Nevertheless, the complete destruction of all means of communication of the ship with one missile with a 50% probability is from the field of unscientific fiction.


                    Quote: Operator
                    The problem is different - at the moment there is no air defense / missile ship with ten times the power of computing equipment and, therefore, the required cubic capacity in it.

                    Do you know that a modern smartphone is several orders of magnitude faster than a computer that landed the "lunar modules"?


                    Quote: Operator
                    Centralized guidance of missiles of a ship’s formation, by definition, requires disabling for this period the autonomous operation of ship’s air defense / missile defense systems.

                    Again. Square ride.
                    Damn, is it really so difficult to understand the need, and most importantly, the ability to distribute targets between ships?

                    Quote: Operator
                    In addition to radio transmitting equipment, there are also radio transmitting antennas of broadband communication, which are not protected from electromagnetic radiation. To restart them, it takes several minutes, which is more than the flight time of supersonic anti-ship missiles flying out from under the radio horizon at a low altitude.

                    Rather seconds. And optics in general will not pay attention to this.


                    Quote: Operator
                    The electronic warfare system is announced - an explosive electromagnetic generator EMR installed on board one of the anti-ship missiles instead of warheads.

                    Unscientific fiction. Send such a first-first and knock down, send it in a massive salvo - will destroy the guidance equipment of the RCC. To send behind everyone, there will be no sense in it.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 21 March 2016 20: 51
                      -1
                      So I say that the issue of AUG requires a separate consideration.

                      Three calculations of anti-tank guns will distribute the tanks among themselves in a natural way - according to the principle of immediate targets, since the speed of maneuvering the tanks along the attack front is negligible. Another thing is supersonic anti-ship missiles, which can mutually move in anti-aircraft maneuver along the attack front at speeds of several hundred meters per second.

                      With fragments of the RCC warhead with an 50 percent probability, not all antennas will be destroyed, but only those involved in the broadband transmission of online data with the coordinates of air targets.

                      As for the existence of a smartphone, please tell the Zamvolt radio-electronic devices, otherwise they were not aware when they installed the multi-ton air defense / missile defense system on the destroyer.

                      How can I distribute 112 maneuvering supersonic targets between 10 ships - hang a tag on each target? And if they begin to intensively change places in the attacking formation, merging into one point on the radars when crossing their trajectories?

                      According to the experience of the Sary-Shagan test site, electronic equipment required a reboot from 5 to 15 minutes after exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

                      We are talking about the possibility of intercepting anti-ship missiles with external target designation when transmitting target coordinates to an air defense / missile defense ship over the air - what does the optics have to do with it?

                      RCC with the explosive magnetic generator EMP will be the first to leave the radio horizon, make a hill (while anti-aircraft missiles from the ships will be approaching it), orient the longitudinal axis with an inclination towards the ship’s connection and generate EMP. The pulse of the explosive magnetic generator propagates in two directions - towards the ships of the RCC and in the opposite direction (into space).
              2. 27091965
                27091965 21 March 2016 17: 11
                +1
                Quote: Operator
                During a volley attack of anti-ship missiles, each anti-aircraft / missile ship will be primarily fought off missiles flying into it. In this case, all ships will be attacked almost simultaneously.


                I think it’s not worth considering that the anti-ship missiles will fall “like snow on their heads”, the missile defense of the compound is of a zonal-object nature and is carried out as part of a single integrated system of measures for anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and anti-ship (anti-boat) defense. It provides, firstly, the fight against carriers of anti-ship missiles, and secondly, the detection and destruction of the missiles themselves during the flight to the target.
                The fight against anti-ship missiles is organized in zones (long-range - 80-12Ó km, middle -20–80 and short-range, including the self-defense zone - up to 20 km) and provides for the layered use of reconnaissance and electronic warfare equipment, carrier-based aircraft (if there is an aircraft carrier in the ship’s structure) ) and helicopters, anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems.
                According to military experts, the most effective means of defeating anti-ship missiles in zones are air defense systems. Outside of the radius of the anti-aircraft missile systems, carrier-based anti-aircraft missiles are fighting. Apparently the effectiveness of the means of destruction of RCC and assigned the reservation a secondary role.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 21 March 2016 17: 59
                  -1
                  There are no ways to combat submarines - carriers of anti-ship missiles with a flight range of 500 km or more (outside the radio horizon of the AWACS aircraft).

                  Air-to-air missiles of carrier-based aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles of air defense / missile defense ships are really effective weapons against anti-ship missiles. But there are two But:
                  - the DRLA detection distance of modern anti-ship missiles with EPR 0,01 sq. m is 125 km;
                  - during a double flight of anti-ship missiles as part of a salvo, it is possible to use the so-called. flickering interference ~ onboard electronic warfare systems of each pair of anti-ship missiles generate a virtual target located in the space between the anti-ship missiles, at which the seeker of air-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft missiles is guided.

                  The trick is that the millimeter seeker of anti-ship missiles sees ships with an RCS of 10000 square meters as full-size silhouettes, and the millimeter radars of the seeker of air-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft missiles see anti-ship missiles as a point mark.
                2. Glad
                  Glad 26 June 2016 21: 24
                  0
                  Quote: 27091965i
                  I think it’s not worth considering that the anti-ship missiles will fall “like snow on their heads”, the anti-ballistic missile defense of the compound is zone-object in nature and is carried out as part of a single integrated system of measures for anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and anti-ship (anti-boat) defense ... The fight against anti-ship missiles is organized by zone (the longest — 80–12 средней km, the middle — 20–80, and the nearest — including the self-defense zone — up to 20 km)

                  You can’t argue with that. The only clarification is most likely that the survival of AUG in modern conditions will be determined by the capabilities of PLO. And this greatly limits the time that will be at the disposal of security ships to organize effective air defense.
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 21 March 2016 14: 37
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Quote: spravochnik
          Yeah, yeah, Gorshkova gets into the mast, and Burke in the bow superstructure and the entire radar is a big caput.

          So what? Is it critical?

          In general, I noticed a strange tendency of "spherical connotation" when discussing any weapon systems.
          In the appendix to the discussed, both "Gorshkov" and "Burke" are just an element of a system that includes not only a ship group, but everything from satellites (communications, global positioning, reconnaissance) and ending with hydroacoustic systems like SOSUS and its descendants.


          And who argues with this. I just gave a comment on one specific phrase.
    6. spravochnik
      spravochnik 21 March 2016 12: 52
      +2
      [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] [quote]
      It never occurred to you that the central station of the CIU, electric generators, engine rooms and air-handling units with ammunition can (and should) be inside the citadel
      [/ Quote]

      We place EVERYTHING in the citadel. What kind of armor can it be protected? I do not think that it is thick enough to withstand heavy RCC. This anti-ship missile penetrates the armor of the citadel and smashes EVERYTHING with one hit. So, the separation of systems on the ship provides greater stability of the system than concentration in one volume.
  3. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 21 March 2016 07: 36
    -11%
    Let's try to armor the relatively modern missile cruiser Glory.

    Already done)) Wrote about modern

    Only we do not need a relatively modern one. Need modern
    The developers of a promising destroyer will come from the best technologies that we have today

    - multifunctional radars with stationary AFAR
    - rejection of additional radars for illumination and missile guidance
    - below deck UVP
    - multifunctional masts
    - the best, most compact and economical gas turbine power plants with electric transmission






    Which of the following has RRC pr. 1164. The answer is nothing. Even the "Fort" UVP, in fact, is not a UVP, but 8-round drum launchers rotating under the deck. As a result, the mass of such an installation, in comparison with the cellular UVP Mk 41 that appeared later in the United States, turned out to be at the same capacity in 2-2,5 times more, and the volume - in 1,5 times more.

    Why take such obviously absurd examples and then try to prove something?
    1. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 16: 10
      +6
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      - multifunctional radars with stationary AFAR

      So British destroyers like 45 are junk ... what a nuisance. Oh my god, and the Lavayette frigates are outdated junk! Yes, and Gorshkov too !!! I'm in a panic - they all have radars with rotating HEADLIGHTS.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      - rejection of additional radars for illumination and missile guidance
      This is a grandmother in two said. In some cases, on-load tap-changers are more profitable.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      - below deck UVP
      And 20380 does not have UVP. Apparently junk.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      - multifunctional masts
      Slava herself has a multifunctional mast. It weighs so much on it!
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      - the best, most compact and economical gas turbine power plants with electric transmission
      You are somehow modest. Can I? "The very best of the self-perfected, the coolest, with electronic injection and vector-controlled propulsion." The more colorful epithets, the more convincing! Isn't it?
  4. DM51
    DM51 21 March 2016 07: 40
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    In this situation, even if the volume of the SAM cellar is reserved, but the enemy RCC will fall into unarmored part of the building, where, unfortunately, communication equipment or radars of the control center or power generators will be located


    It never occurred to you that the central station of the CIU, electric generators, engine rooms and air-handling units with ammunition can (and should) be inside the citadel

    Communication equipment - in the pocket of every officer


    Mobile Satellite TV Dish

    This means that it is necessary to reserve the equipment of the radar and power plants in the building, as well as cable routes.

    All compact equipment inside the citadel
    For example, all components of the reduced system of a ship of the WWII era are armored, and for modern ships the antennas are not protected in principle (the probability of their defeat is higher)

    They are located so that they cannot be destroyed in one hit.

    And maybe you can explain how the RTOs of the Caspian flotilla, generally without any radars, fired at 1500 km of Syria

    And the TU-160 can hit targets for 5000 km. From itself and how will it protect it from an air-to-air missile?
    If you make the warhead of the ZR cassette or shrapnel, then you can easily bring out all the antenna canvases with one hit - there is a counteraction for every action. Nobody bothered with this because there is no armored fleet, and as it appears, new weapons will immediately appear and the armor again Oleg, can you understand it or not, or your armor has become a religion and you pray for it ?!
  5. Per se.
    Per se. 21 March 2016 07: 45
    +6
    From the table it is clear that the RRC “Glory” can be fully loaded with an additional 1700 tons of load, which will be about 15,5% of the resulting displacement in 11 000 tons. It fully corresponds to the parameters of the cruisers of the Second World War period. And TARKR “Peter the Great” can withstand the reinforcement of armor from 4500 tons of load, which will be 15,9% of the standard displacement.
    So there is still a possibility. Another question is what kind of armor we are talking about and what method of booking, against what, a shell or anti-ship missile, and what anti-ship missile. If we again start talking about the technologies of the last century and present what was relevant for World War II, booking, as a type of protection, will be exposed as a relic of the past, which, in fact, begged for conclusions. Reservation, as a way to increase survivability, is used everywhere, for example, the Su-34 has combined the experience of the combat use of strike vehicles in local conflicts. For the first time in the history of aviation, the cockpit of a front-line bomber is made in the form of a durable armored capsule. The crew and the most important units of the aircraft are covered with titanium armor up to 17 mm thick. If we immediately talk about hitting a warhead of the S-300 type, it will be a mockery. If we look for opportunities to increase the survivability of modern ships, against modern threats, we must set such goals. If we justify the "cardboard" boards of our large ships, we must look for reasons not to change anything here. There are guys here who remember the upstarts at school, but there were also those who were "friends" against one crowd. If we are discussing a topic that is far from unambiguous, far from simple, it is probably good to have different points of view, a different vision, different solutions. Benefit for the fleet, our fleet, the main goal.
    1. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 11: 10
      +10
      Quote: Per se.
      Reservation, as a way to increase survivability, is used everywhere, for example, the Su-34 combines the experience of the combat use of attack machines in local conflicts.

      About Su-34, too, is not all clear. I would put the Su-25 as an example.
      For the rest, I agree with your criticism, once again I remind you that I am not opposed to booking ships. I do not pretend to be true, I have no doubt that professionals will find many errors in the article I wrote. I'm just trying to make the discussion process of booking among lovers more deliberate, more engineering.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 21 March 2016 11: 43
        +5
        Quote: Alex_59
        I'm just trying to make the discussion process of booking among lovers more deliberate, more engineering.
        I am grateful to you for this, as well as for the article itself, which, in my opinion, is one of the best.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 21 March 2016 17: 59
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          for the article itself, which, in my opinion, is one of the best.

          If not the best, as a reasoned enough evidence base regarding a particular topic. Compared to Kaptsov’s arguments, it’s a masterpiece ...
          Personally, my opinion hi
    2. Glad
      Glad 26 June 2016 21: 38
      0
      Quote: Per se.
      Reservation, as a way to increase survivability, is used everywhere, for example, the Su-34 combined the experience of the combat use of attack machines in local conflicts. For the first time in aviation history, the cockpit of a front-line bomber is made in the form of a durable armored capsule. The crew and the most important aircraft units are covered with titanium armor up to 17 mm thick.

      Alas dear For itselfbut your example is not correct. On airplanes (and even more so on front-line airplanes) there are no sufficient reserves of carrying capacity to accommodate a sufficiently effective anti-ballistic missile similar to naval air defense systems, although developments are underway. In addition, there is no (in the sense of no nature) means of active destruction of shells of small-caliber cannons and bullets of large-caliber machine guns. In this situation, the use of armor is clearly justified. You can not say about ship armor.
      I am not saying that it is not needed at all. Not at all. You just need to correctly prioritize and not hang extra "hardware" on the ship, wasting precious displacement, which can be spent on installing more effective active means of destroying enemy ammunition.
  6. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 21 March 2016 08: 14
    -4
    In fact, the very concept of a "warship" acquired a completely different meaning than during the Second World War. If before the warship was a platform for many relatively independent (self-contained) weapons components

    He’s never been like this, do not compose

    The same power supply - a dead ship was waiting for immediate death
    The role of electricity in the combat effectiveness of WWII ships is incommensurably less, because even with the power turned off, the continuation of the fire is possible with manual feeding of shells and rough guidance by optical means

    Joker, turn the 300-ton tower of Baltimore manually

    In fact, the very concept of a "warship" acquired a completely different meaning than during the Second World War. If before the warship was a platform for many relatively independent (self-contained) weapons components

    As for small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, Erlikonov, etc.

    There are also "last chance" weapons these days.
    fully independent self-guided anti-aircraft anti-aircraft guns with integrated radars in their design

    let alone the 70 Stinger kits for the destroyer
  7. pimen
    pimen 21 March 2016 08: 21
    +2
    stated quite convincingly. Essentially, for a full-fledged reservation, there is only one way left: the functional diversity of one large ship in a series of specialized small ones, which is not always convenient
    1. pimen
      pimen 21 March 2016 11: 42
      0
      however, if you fantasize further, then it could well be a kind of lighter carrier made of well-armored specialized monitors that retain good autonomy and "close" the consequences of a missed strike
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 21 March 2016 12: 39
        +1
        There were such developments. Semi-submersible auxiliary vessel, providing transportation of missile boats to foreign coastal waters, and their supply / maintenance (boats have low autonomy by default)
        1. pimen
          pimen 21 March 2016 12: 57
          0
          nevertheless, this is not quite right: normal, with some general functionality, ridge, plus (need to think over) specialized modules (quantity?): PLO, air defense, with anti-ship missiles, electronic warfare, (what else?)
  8. srelock
    srelock 21 March 2016 08: 25
    +6
    Perhaps I will add one more nuance to the article.
    Reservation of artillery ships was calculated for certain types of shells and the firing range of the alleged enemy. Due to the characteristics of ballistics, such as speed and angle of approach of shells, thickness, armor design, own artillery system, and range at which it was supposed to be fought were chosen.
    None of the above can be applied to RCC, because approach angles can be any, and speeds reach 1000m / s. The potential for armor penetration and the striking ability of the most widespread in the world of RCC is not inferior, and often exceeds similar indicators art. ship of similar displacement.
    70 years ago, no one could even think about installing on a ship with a displacement of 7-8 thousand tons 400mm. art.systems, and now this is a reality even for corvettes with a VI of 2500 tons.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 21 March 2016 08: 49
      -5
      Quote: srelock
      because approach angles can be any

      So it's great, at large angles you get a rebound
      Quote: srelock
      and speeds go up to 1000m / s.

      can you name at least one of these missiles
      Quote: srelock
      The potential for armor penetration and the striking ability of the most widespread in the world of RCC is not inferior, and often exceeds similar indicators art. ship of similar displacement.

      And how did you find it
      Quote: srelock
      400mm. art.systems, and now it’s a reality even for corvettes with VI 2500 tons.

      In your opinion, the warhead of the "Caliber" has a mass of 1225 kg?
      1. Aleksandr12
        Aleksandr12 21 March 2016 09: 34
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: srelock
        and speeds go up to 1000m / s.
        can you name at least one of these missiles

        X-31. "Mosquito" X-41, although it has a lower speed, is as close as possible to 1000 m / s. I hope I won't have to remind about the x-22 wink
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 21 March 2016 09: 38
          -3
          Quote: Aleksandr12
          X-31

          Even she has 1000 m / s not at sea level
          Quote: Aleksandr12
          "Mosquito" X-41, although it has a lower speed

          2M at sea level
          Quote: Aleksandr12
          I don’t have to remind about x-22

          also no 3M at sea level

          it turns out that there are not many missiles in the world with an approach speed of 1000 m / s
  9. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 21 March 2016 08: 33
    +6
    Let me get negative comments. but let me remind you about the death of the Monsoon missile from the fall of the P-15 rocket - the ship stupidly burned out to the ground, the superstructures with a torch - the pioneer boiler burned out in 15 minutes? It will be the same with any modern ship if an anti-ship missile superstructure or a shell from an EM cannon hits the AMG, and the armor inside the hull will remain ... at the bottom !!! Enough to grind water in a mortar and flog nonsense, you need to discuss more pressing problems and propose solutions to these problems in a constructive manner!
  10. common man
    common man 21 March 2016 09: 03
    +9
    It seems to me that the author has several incorrect messages in the initial data of the problem under consideration. First. Why is the KR "Slava" being considered? This is still technology from the 80s. Analog electronics, shock weapons on deck. I propose to take as a basis the project of the destroyer "Leader" and consider what can give or not give its booking. Fortunately, the main dimensions and layout are known.
    Second. Why are we defending ourselves. The main striking force of the United States is aircraft carriers and, accordingly, carrier-based aircraft. At least, the majority of VO readers think so. "... And who will let him near the aircraft carrier? Its planes will reach and destroy it 1000 km from the order." Quite a frequent statement on VO. Therefore, let's consider the anti-ship missiles used by carrier-based aircraft. With the appropriate mass and types of warheads.
    The third. What to book. In my opinion, why book a long-range air defense system? They must be released before the ship’s alleged destruction. By the way, short-range air defense systems have their own guidance systems, including optical ones, and in this sense differ little from WWII air defense.
    And a couple more "thoughts". It is widely believed that as soon as armor appears on a ship, light anti-ship missiles will immediately be replaced with heavy anti-ship missiles with armor-piercing warheads. Well, it is impossible to replace the Harpoon anti-ship missile system with the Vulcan on the ship. For this you need to replace the ship. And not one, but all built before. And this is no longer shukhry-muhry.
    There is no clear definition of the purpose of the booking. "Preservation of the ship as a combat unit for guaranteed performance of the combat mission" or "Preservation of the ship as a floating craft for return to base and subsequent repair" or "preservation of the life of the crew." Everything else depends on the definition of goals.
    Something like that in the opinion of a layman.
    1. Forest
      Forest 21 March 2016 09: 58
      0
      Rockets simply due to their kinetic energy can break through (not penetrate) the armor. And there are already missile heads for breaking through armor.
    2. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 10: 59
      +7
      Quote: man in the street
      Why is the KR "Slava" being considered? This is still technology from the 80s. Analog electronics, shock weapons on deck.

      I will explain. The "armor" load item of the ship is expressed as a percentage of the standard displacement. For ships from 6 to 15 thousand tons, it was 10-15%, no more. From this it follows that the smaller the ship, the less the possible weight allocated for the armor. Therefore, for a ship with a VI of 5000 tons, the weight of the armor will be a maximum of 500 tons. With this weight, it is impossible to create armor with a serious thickness. Slava and Peter the Great are the most modern ships with a displacement of more than 9 thousand tons. The rest are even less. Those. Slava and Peter are the only ships in the ranks in which the proportion of armor reaches serious values. It is a waste of time to consider frigates and destroyers with VI less than 8000 tons - the possible weight of the armor is too small to make it serious. I did similar calculations for Burke, Ticonderoga and a few other smaller ships, and everywhere the result turned out worse than that of Slava and Peter, so I did not consider it necessary to publish these calculations.
      Quote: man in the street
      I propose to take as a basis the project of the destroyer "Leader" and consider what can give or not give its booking. Fortunately, the main dimensions and layout are known.

      Honestly, poorly known. There will be details, it will be possible to count.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 21 March 2016 11: 23
        -4
        Quote: Alex_59
        Therefore, for a ship with a VI 5000 tons, the weight of the armor will be a maximum of 500 tons.

        Cruiser "DePuy de Lom"
        with a full displacement of 6600 tons, the weight of his armor reached 1400 tons.

        Cruiser "Admiral Sharne"
        4700 tons - armor weight 1200 tons
        Quote: Alex_59
        For ships from 6 to 15 thousand tons, it amounted to 10-15%, not more than

        At Dupuis de Lom - 21%
        Admiral Sharne - 25%
        Quote: Alex_59
        I explain.

        Quote: Alex_59
        Examining frigates and destroyers with VI less than 8000 tons is a waste of time - the possible weight of the armor is too small to make it serious.

        Explain this to the creators of the cruiser Dupuis de Lom
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 21 March 2016 13: 10
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

          Cruiser "Admiral Sharne"
          4700 tons - armor weight 1200 tons
          Quote: Alex_59
          For ships from 6 to 15 thousand tons, it amounted to 10-15%, not more than

          At Dupuis de Lom - 21%
          Admiral Sharne - 25%
          Quote: Alex_59
          I explain.

          Quote: Alex_59
          Examining frigates and destroyers with VI less than 8000 tons is a waste of time - the possible weight of the armor is too small to make it serious.

          Explain this to the creators of the cruiser Dupuis de Lom


          And recall when these cruisers were built. And remind about their performance to the creators of the armored ships of the Second World War. It looks like military-technical issues for you - the dark forest.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Operator
            Operator 21 March 2016 14: 04
            -1
            Displacement of the cruiser "Dupuis de Loma"was equal to 6783 tons with a side armor thickness of 100 mm (21% of the displacement).

            A warhead in the form of an impact core made of tantalum with a diameter of 500 mm pierces 500-mm armor. To counter it, you will need to increase the proportion of the reservation "Loma" up to 105 percent bully
            1. pimen
              pimen 21 March 2016 14: 59
              -4
              Quote: Operator
              Displacement of the cruiser "Dupuis de Loma"was equal to 6783 tons with a side armor thickness of 100 mm (21% of the displacement).

              A warhead in the form of an impact core made of tantalum with a diameter of 500 mm pierces 500-mm armor. To counter it, you will need to increase the proportion of the reservation "Loma" up to 105 percent bully

              And what will do to us (what a horror!) Your strike core? (upon a successful combination of circumstances)
              1. Operator
                Operator 21 March 2016 16: 27
                -2
                The speed of a shock core detonated a meter from the armor is equal to the detonation speed of the core explosive - for HMX, this is 9 km / s (30 M or more than the first space).

                The speed of a sheaf of fragments from fragments of armor and impact nucleus flying inside the ship after breaking through the armor will be several kilometers per second.
                1. pimen
                  pimen 21 March 2016 16: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  The speed of a shock core detonated a meter from the armor is equal to the detonation speed of the core explosive - for HMX, this is 9 km / s (30 M or more than the first space).

                  Well, it’s only a dream (about a meter from the armor)
                  Quote: Operator
                  The speed of a sheaf of fragments from fragments of armor and impact nucleus flying inside the ship after breaking through the armor will be several kilometers per second.

                  and will it sink the ship?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 21 March 2016 18: 02
                    -1
                    What is the dream?

                    This will bring the ship out of combat condition.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 21 March 2016 19: 13
                      +1
                      Will the galley be destroyed?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 21 March 2016 20: 52
                        -1
                        You live smartly - you protect galleys with armor.
                    2. Hog
                      Hog 21 March 2016 23: 43
                      0
                      Quote: Operator

                      This will bring the ship out of combat condition.

                      And how (and also specify the ship's displacement)?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 22 March 2016 00: 38
                        -1
                        In a manner similar, for example, to the destruction of the Sheffield destroyer (displacement of 5350 tons) or the frigate Stark (displacement of 4200 tons) using the Exocet anti-ship missile system (launch weight 0,8 tons, including warhead 0,165 tons ).

                        If the launch mass of the anti-ship missile system is increased to 2 tons, incl. Warhead 0,45 t (anti-ship missiles "Caliber"), then you can count on disabling ships with a displacement of up to 15000 tons.
                2. Glad
                  Glad 26 June 2016 23: 15
                  0
                  Quote: Operator
                  The speed of a shock core detonated a meter from the armor is equal to the detonation speed of the core explosive - for HMX, this is 9 km / s (30 M or more than the first space).

                  This is not so, dear Operator.In contrast to the cumulative jet (CS), which really has a high speed (can be 10-15 km / s), the impact core (UY) has a much lower speed - 2-4 km / s. However, losing in speed, UY, ceteris paribus, it turns out much harder - up to 95% of the weight of the lining against 10-20% in the COP.
                  Further, the speed of the CS is more dependent on the speed of sound in the cladding material than on the detonation velocity of the explosive.
                  Penetration of steel on steel is 9-10 projectile clearances; UYA this parameter is much more modest - 0,5-0,8 calibers. However, with a solid warhead size, the armor penetration of an AU can be 300-500 mm or more.
              2. Glad
                Glad 26 June 2016 23: 22
                0
                Quote: pimen
                And what will do to us (what a horror!) Your strike core? (upon a successful combination of circumstances)

                Do enough, dear pimen... But this is still half the trouble (for a ship, of course). The anti-ship missile warhead can be designed in such a way that, after the shock core, it will "fly" into the ship's hull, so to speak, "the second part of the Marlezon ballet" - an ordinary high-explosive ammunition. And he will do a lot of things, moreover, already behind the armor.
          3. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 21 March 2016 20: 58
            0
            Quote: spravochnik
            And remind, when these cruisers were built

            You mean progress is moving in the opposite direction?
            degrading))
            Quote: spravochnik
            And remind about their performance to the creators of the armored ships of the Second World War

            By the way, pretty good performance
          4. igor.borov775
            igor.borov775 23 March 2016 10: 05
            0
            You just missed the main point. Each ship is designed for the tasks that it should solve. And here the question immediately arises of the country's capabilities in shipbuilding. A warship is expensive, it costs a lot, it takes a long time. During this time, much that was considered fiction becomes reality. Technology changes; battle systems change weapons, the very concept of using weapons is changing. Here, on the site next door, completely incompatible ships are examined. They were created in completely different conditions for completely different conditions and other possibilities. But the main thing that distinguishes them is that these are real fighters and it was more expensive to communicate with them. You can talk about them with foam at the mouth. And I remember my youth at the berth is the cruiser Admiral Fokin, and around it the destroyers of that distant pore now. And this fighter the cruiser was shorter than the destroyers. And the weapons were amazing. You can’t tear off warships from the tasks and conditions when they were created. With respect to everyone on the site.
        2. Alex_59
          21 March 2016 15: 56
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Cruiser "DePuy de Lom"
          with a full displacement of 6600 tons, the weight of his armor reached 1400 tons.

          Cruiser "Admiral Sharne"
          4700 tons - armor weight 1200 tons

          Lay out the tables of weight loads for these ships and their performance characteristics, let's see what they have there. I am primarily interested in articles on electronics, crews, fuel supplies, supplies. But at the same time their speed, maneuverability, cruising range, type and quantity of anti-aircraft and anti-submarine weapons, the presence of aircraft weapons.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 21 March 2016 21: 09
            -1
            Quote: Alex_59
            Spread weight tables for these ships

            Why do you need them, without information about the metacentric height, lengthening of the hull, its contours, layout and distribution of loads on decks
            Quote: Alex_59
            and their performance characteristics

            the article was a month ago, there in detail
            in short, it was the fastest and most well-armed cruiser of its era
            Quote: Alex_59
            I am primarily interested in articles on electronics

            And I'm interested in articles on the placement of guns of the caliber 194 mm in armored towers (200 mm) on modern ships
            Quote: Alex_59
            crews

            500 + person
            Quote: Alex_59
            . But at the same time their speed, maneuverability, cruising range, type and quantity of anti-aircraft and anti-submarine weapons, the presence of aircraft weapons.

            If you throw out old steam engines from Dupuis de Lom, remove the towers, both armored combat masts from the control tower and other obsolete junk, dismantle the 20 mm mild structural steel plating, include armor in the hull power set - any modern equipment will fit inside
      2. ibnvladimir
        ibnvladimir April 26 2016 21: 59
        0
        What armor materials do you expect?
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 March 2016 13: 11
      +3
      Quote: man in the street
      The third. What to book. In my opinion, why book a long-range air defense system? They must be released before the ship’s alleged destruction.

      That is, you implicitly believe that there will be only one hit? And that the air defense missile defense system has time to fulfill all the goals?
      If we take the old ancient "Harpoon" with its 1000 km / h and the detection range of the NLC - about 40 km, then we will have about 100-120 seconds to work out on anti-ship missiles DD.
      It is not a fact that this time is enough to empty all the cells of the air defense system of air defense systems of air defense systems.
      And most importantly - if we release the entire BC ZUR DD, then how to fight off the next wave? what
  11. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 21 March 2016 09: 38
    0
    Such a reservation only slightly improves the combat efficiency of the ship, but can significantly increase its survivability. This is a chance not to fly into the air instantly, but to try to organize a struggle to save the ship. Finally, it’s just time that can allow the crew to evacuate.
    Maybe at least to save the crew should think about booking?
  12. Alex_Sis
    Alex_Sis 21 March 2016 09: 58
    +5
    umm ... is someone confusing something?
    The performance data of project 1144

    Displacement, t:
    standard: 23750
    ...
    Reservation: Compartment PU ПР 700 "Granite" - walls above OHL 100 mm, walls below OHL 70 mm, roof 70 mm, cellar PLUR 85Р - walls above OHL 100 mm, walls below OHL 70 mm, roof 70 mm, GKP and BIP - side walls 100 mm, traverses 75 mm, roof 75 mm, helicopter hangar, kerosene storage, cellar of the ammunition stock - side walls 70 mm, roof 50 mm
    1. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 11: 12
      +3
      Quote: Alex_Sis
      Reservation: Compartment PU ПР 700 "Granite" - walls above OHL 100 mm, walls below OHL 70 mm, roof 70 mm, cellar PLUR 85Р - walls above OHL 100 mm, walls below OHL 70 mm, roof 70 mm, GKP and BIP - side walls 100 mm, traverses 75 mm, roof 75 mm, helicopter hangar, kerosene storage, cellar of the ammunition stock - side walls 70 mm, roof 50 mm

      This is a local reservation. Yes, according to some sources, it is available.
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 21 March 2016 14: 26
      0
      You have forgotten about "Kuzyu", which has side longitudinal armored bulkheads.
  13. Forest
    Forest 21 March 2016 09: 58
    +2
    By the way, Peter the Great and now has a reservation of vital sites.
  14. Operator
    Operator 21 March 2016 10: 07
    +5
    The author of the article is certainly a plus for the engineering approach to the issue under consideration (in sharp contrast to the humanitarian approach of his opponent O. Kaptsov).

    Unfortunately, from all the above schemes of the possible cruiser "Slava" one conclusion follows - all deck superstructures remain without reservation (with fragmentary armoring of the hull). And this means complete insecurity of the "eyes" of the ship - the radars. Consequently, even the notorious "Harpoon" can blind "Glory", after which it will be finished off by any weapon.

    On modern ships, this situation is further exacerbated by the reduction of radars to one or two multi-functional, plus the separation of the headlights on different sides of the superstructure (the output of one headlight leads to blindness of the ship at this azimuth).

    Those. armor absolutely cannot protect the ship from blinding any high-explosive fragmentation warheads mounted on tactical anti-ship missiles or higher.

    There are two ways out: building up the capabilities of active missile defense or air defense / missile defense ships going under water with external target designation from the aircraft of the AWACS (as part of the ASG), landing craft (as part of the ASG) or a commercial vessel (as part of the convoy).

    PS Rear Admiral Viktor Bursuk steers laughing
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 21 March 2016 10: 23
      -9
      Quote: Operator
      The author of the article is certainly a plus for the engineering approach to this issue.

      where is he engineering?))

      What exactly do his tables describe?
      1. Operator
        Operator 21 March 2016 10: 38
        +4
        The engineering approach is based on calculations (Alexei has them), the humanitarian approach is based solely on words.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 21 March 2016 10: 57
          -3
          Quote: Operator
          based on calculations (Alexei has them in stock)

          What exactly did he calculate?
          and where did you get the source data for the calculation?
          1. Alex_59
            21 March 2016 15: 44
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What exactly did he calculate?

            Reread again all the parts carefully.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and where did you get the source data for the calculation?

            In technical and scientific articles, information sources are indicated at the end. Wait for the 4 part. There will be a cherry on the cake. smile
    2. Taoist
      Taoist 21 March 2016 11: 37
      +2
      Well, actually everything is developing in this vein. Active defenses are more beneficial than any passive defense. The power of modern means of destruction is too great, so much so that the only real way of protection is to "prevent" them from reaching their side ... + constructive protection to minimize damage by secondary factors ... Amateurs of "battleships" simply simply lack the knowledge to make this simple fact realize. This series of articles "puts everything on the shelves"
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 21 March 2016 11: 41
        -3
        Taoist, better say - speed is the first or second derivative in the kin formula. energy?)))))
    3. Glad
      Glad 26 June 2016 23: 41
      0
      Quote: Operator
      On modern ships, this situation is further exacerbated by the reduction of radars to one or two multi-functional, plus the separation of the headlights on different sides of the superstructure (the output of one headlight leads to blindness of the ship at this azimuth).

      With the transition to AFAR it will nevertheless be easier. In the event of the failure of some elements, the AFAR will remain operational.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. sharkmen
    sharkmen 21 March 2016 10: 40
    +5
    Yes, with all the desire to draw out Mr. Kaptsov's arguments above fiction, it is not possible. Thanks to the author for trying a systematic analysis of the issue. It turned out or not - as anyone likes, but it's nice to break your head over the calculations. Mr. Kaptsov, change the rubric to "OPINIONS", once reading your opuses was even interesting. By the way, the rhetoric in the style of a gopnik does not strengthen your arguments in any way - it is just a sign of a weak position and only
  17. Greyjojo
    Greyjojo 21 March 2016 10: 59
    +1
    [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] [quote = srelock] because approach angles can be any [/ quote]
    So it's great, at large angles you get a rebound

    I think it meant that the RCC can fly both vertically into the deck and perpendicular to the board.

    [quote = srelock] and speeds go up to 1000m / s. [/ quote]
    can you name at least one of these missiles

    3M-54E
  18. PPD
    PPD 21 March 2016 11: 05
    +2
    As everything turns out easily, I wanted, I put on my armor, I wanted to take it off. Coat, and only.
    Will we put armor on the outside or inside? So she is already in some places on Peter.
    Hence the confidence that when installing externally, you won’t have to reinforce, or even radically redo the entire case. Put it on glue? Money for armor, alteration, additions, reinforcements, engineering refinements do not need at all! And the time for that is 5 minutes. laughing We do not have enough minesweepers, with destroyers strained, etc.
    What is the need to arm a dozen ships, the ocean fleet? The Yankees will devour them with giblets and will not choke, they are stupidly more. If there were more then it would make sense. Yes, and look not at the reservation scheme, but they protected something, but in general it does not give anything. The area is small. And it is not known whether the armor will withstand. Even if it does not burn, then who will give the damaged ship to the base to bring. The same Varangian off the coast of Syria. To Sevastopol saw and saw.
    Well, the protection on newly built large ones should be foreseen initially of course.
  19. Alex_Sis
    Alex_Sis 21 March 2016 11: 21
    +2
    Quote: Alex_59
    Quote: Alex_Sis
    Reservation: Compartment PU ПР 700 "Granite" - walls above OHL 100 mm, walls below OHL 70 mm, roof 70 mm, cellar PLUR 85Р - walls above OHL 100 mm, walls below OHL 70 mm, roof 70 mm, GKP and BIP - side walls 100 mm, traverses 75 mm, roof 75 mm, helicopter hangar, kerosene storage, cellar of the ammunition stock - side walls 70 mm, roof 50 mm

    This is a local reservation. Yes, according to some sources, it is available.

    but in your article you write about the absence of one and offer, in fact, the same local solution.
    1. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 15: 47
      +2
      Quote: Alex_Sis
      but in your article you write about the absence of one and offer, in fact, the same local solution.

      I did not see Peter's reservation scheme. I think few people saw her. And I have no confidence on 100% that the info about his so developed armor is reliable. She went from 90's from the creations of a certain Pavlov, who published his books in Yakutsk. It was there that the thickness and design of the 1144 RRC armor was first described in such detail in detail. Not being sure at 100% that this is accurate information, I preferred not to take it into account. If the 1144 reservation information is correct, then my calculations will of course be adjusted.
  20. RPG_
    RPG_ 21 March 2016 12: 49
    0
    But what if you set a goal for the reservation so that the ship withstood 2-4 hits and did not sink right away. that is, the purpose of the reservation is number 1) When the air defense and the electronic warfare of the ship were broken through, it got hit and cannot continue to fight, but all (or almost all) crew members were alive and the ship kept moving in order to leave the battle and save itself as a battle unit. 2) The ship received damage incompatible with life, but almost the entire crew is intact and they have enough time to leave the ship.
    We are not suicides, and we are not going to fight to the last, therefore, preserving the ship itself as a combat unit and its crew should be considered a priority.
    1. PPD
      PPD 21 March 2016 20: 39
      0
      Russian-Japanese immediately comes to mind. Had damage to many armadillos of Port Arthur
      the squadrons would have come away from the base, we would have lost most of the ships much earlier.
      Nobody will leave.
  21. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 21 March 2016 13: 11
    -1
    The author-AK-630 has no cellars, there is a barbet, which, depending on the type of ship, is either part of the add-on, or a separate component of the add-on. Booking tables are generally ridiculous, you yourself acknowledge the presence of a local reservation, but you give zero weight, where is the logic ?? ? In general, the first article was interesting, the second drawn, the third niochem.
    1. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 15: 49
      +2
      Quote: Dimon19661
      Author-AK-630 has no cellars, there is a barbet, which, depending on the type of ship, is either part of the superstructure, or a separate component of the superstructure

      Thanks for pointing out the error. I will consider.
      Quote: Dimon19661
      Booking tables are generally ridiculous, you yourself acknowledge the availability of a local reservation, but you give zero weight, where is the logic ???

      There we are talking about the masses before booking, from the original ships. Therefore zero. But here they rightly say that 1144 have armor. Well, let's consider this my mistake.
      Quote: Dimon19661
      In general, the first article was interesting, the second drawn, the third niochem.

      Your right to have an opinion.
  22. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 21 March 2016 13: 44
    +2
    Quote: KudrevKN
    Let me get negative comments. but let me remind you about the death of the Monsoon missile from the fall of the P-15 rocket - the ship stupidly burned out to the ground, the superstructures with a torch - the pioneer boiler burned out in 15 minutes? It will be the same with any modern ship if an anti-ship missile superstructure or a shell from an EM cannon hits the AMG, and the armor inside the hull will remain ... at the bottom !!! Enough to grind water in a mortar and flog nonsense, you need to discuss more pressing problems and propose solutions to these problems in a constructive manner!

    I’m also probably scolded, but it's time to finish these disputes and think about how to build more cool ships, and most importantly build at least kayaks with a mass of 0,1 centner) the main thing is that the adversary can be destroyed by a supersonic oar
  23. podgornovea
    podgornovea 21 March 2016 13: 58
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Quote: srelock
    because approach angles can be any

    So it's great, at large angles you get a rebound

    Quote: srelock
    and speeds go up to 1000m / s.

    can you name at least one of these missiles

    1. And if the top is almost vertical to the deck, too, wonderful?
    2. While the reservation is raked up to do "Zircon" will appear, and it will not be one smile
  24. sevtrash
    sevtrash 21 March 2016 14: 50
    +1
    Gradually we come to the conclusion that it was already clear - a modern ship does not need to be booked. It could be more accurate in another way - with the current state of attack and defense means in modern conditions, you can do without it. Primarily. Moreover, shipbuilders came to this in the last century.
  25. abc_alex
    abc_alex 21 March 2016 15: 36
    +1
    Rather, the opposite. We conclude that booking is not suitable for a modern ship :)

    I don’t know whom, but all these butts around the armor suggest me one thought: a modern battleship needs to be designed from scratch, starting from the concept of application and ending with specific communication systems, target designation.
    Obviously, the layout of modern cruisers and destroyers is not suitable for booking. At least the fact that vital systems are distributed throughout the ship.
    If you create an battleship, then the need for an armored capsule is obvious, similar to what is implemented in the Armata project. Concentrate the main systems inside this capsule, and design everything else as a periphery. Possibly even with autonomous power supply systems.
    And the systems inside the armored capsule should be designed according to "satellite" analogs. These should be unmanned systems with a minimum volume and weight, but multiple redundancy.
    Place the armored capsule so that the hull itself and the internal bulkheads act as an external armor belt. Cable channels should be laid below the water line and duplicated by wireless data transmission systems.

    In general, you need to think a lot about what is important for a modern battleship. For example, is mobility important to him? If he loses the GTU, will he lose combat capability? Subject to the availability of long-range complexes of the class "Granite" - "Onyx"? Well, will the battleship stop having lost its course? If there is onboard power (from the auxiliary control system), he will be able to continue the battle. And those 20+ knots that it does on the move, for a rocket going at 800+ km / h, is practically immobility.

    Does the battleship need its own "large radar"? Heavy anti-ship missiles receive target designation from a satellite anyway, but isn't it better to assign target designation to air defense units to air assets?
  26. Taoist
    Taoist 21 March 2016 17: 22
    +3
    In general, it seems to me, you need to start considering the issue "from the task". In any case, today I just do not see the tasks that such a "gunboat of the 21st century" should solve. In any case, for the Russian Navy. Likewise, there are no tasks requiring the creation of, for example, strike aircraft carriers. The fleet is not a "thing in itself", it is primarily a tool designed to solve a certain range of tasks. And only after deciding on this circle is it worth discussing which of the tools is better suited for solving it.
    It seems to me that today the construction of the fleet is on a path close to optimal.
    There is and continues to improve the "strategic component" - for us it is SSBN and carriers of long-range missile defense systems in nuclear warheads.
    It takes the form of an "operational tactical component" - (although there is still digging and digging) in the universal face of new frigates and modernization projects ...
    And while everything is very sad with the OVR (minesweepers, and near-field PLO). - but at least there is recognition of this problem.

    I don't see any "gunboats" in this "triptych" yet ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  27. Alex_59
    21 March 2016 19: 47
    +1
    Reaction to criticism. Indeed, 1164 and 1144 are not fresh. Maybe I really was mistaken, taking them as a basis. I decided to check. Spread the result.
    I looked at what ships of the reservation era I could find, from the last, closest to the present. The goal was to understand what percentage of VI they have on the armor. Happened:
    LKR Atlanta - 6590 t, 8,9% for armor.
    LCR Arethusa - 5222 t, 11,8% for armor.
    LCR Omaha - 7050 t, 8% for armor.
    LKR Yubari - 4091 t, 8,5% for armor.
    LCR Nuremberg - 7320 t, 10,6% for armor.
    etc.
    He took modern ships - our 22350, the Dutch De Zeven Provinsen, and Burke, if he was not okay. I tried to figure out their reservation scheme.
    22350 - 4000 t displacement, 8,6% for armor, max. thickness 45 mm
    1. Alex_59
      21 March 2016 19: 49
      +1
      Burke - 6630 tons, 10,6% for armor, max. thickness 62 mm
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 21 March 2016 23: 23
        0
        Yes, you also have the wrong calculator))

        10,6% of 6630 t = 700 tons of armor

        The area of ​​constructive protection in your drawing is (9 * 9 + 35 * 5 + 9 * 5) x both sides = 530 sq. m
        with a thickness of 62 mm and a density of 7,8 t per cubic meter, the weight of the specified armor ~ is 250 tons + hundred tons for traverses and armored cell covers

        WHERE have 350 gone ??

        Quote: Alex_59
        armored destroyer of the WWII era. This is an American Farragut. His armor is already 19 mm vertical and 12,7 mm horizontal.

        This is not armor, this is the standard thickness of the 0,75 inch skin
        1. Alex_59
          22 March 2016 12: 07
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Yes, you also have the wrong calculator))

          10,6% of 6630 t = 700 tons of armor

          Again you sat in a puddle. 6630 + 788 = 7418 t. 788 from 7418 = 10,6%
          I am enclosing the calculation table. The fact that the calculations are crude - I do not hide.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 22 March 2016 12: 24
            -1
            Don't you think that the proposed reservation scheme smacks of idiocy?

            Instead of blocking traverses at every step, it is better to spend this load (200 + tons) on a continuous reservation of the sides and two normal bulkheads closing the citadel

            Particularly impressed with the armored compartment under the installation of the Phalanx, in which there is no sense at all

            Finally, Burke’s layout itself does not imply the installation of armor. To do this, you need to design a new ship, with minimal superstructures and a larger side width
            1. Alex_59
              22 March 2016 12: 42
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Don't you think that the proposed reservation scheme smacks of idiocy?

              It seems. Therefore, in reality it is not.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              To do this, you need to design a new ship, with minimal superstructures and a larger side width

              Design. Spread it out. We'll see.
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 21 March 2016 23: 13
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      LKR Yubari - 4091 t, 8,5% for armor.

      Alexey, with all due respect

      error No.1
      why did you decide that the protection would have to be "tamped" into the displacement of a modern frigate, and not build a new hull with a larger displacement, where the protection and all the "stuffing" of the frigate would be placed. Do we have any international restrictions on aircrafts and ships?

      error No.2:
      load articles - a variable parameter, it all depends on the current layout and priorities
      so pushing against the horn in 8% is wrong
      for example, how will the% ratio of the mass of the hull and armor structures change if the armor elements become part of the power set and skin? caught the moment? wink

      error No.3:
      Yubari had an extension of the 1: 12 body. And his whole design was aimed at achieving the speed of 35 knots. with imperfect 100 technology years ago. Because all 8% of constructive protection
  28. Alex_59
    21 March 2016 19: 58
    +1
    Well, our Dutch news, De Zeven Provinsen. Around 5000 tons standard, 9,1% for armor, max. thickness 55 mm. It’s hardest with him, no diagrams, no drawings. GEM by eye, but tried not to inflate, to be honest. The Dutchman is of course more densely shot down, the booking is almost like Burke did. However, I do not see a wild breakthrough in the whole trinity.
    And by the way, I did find the armored destroyer of the WWII era. This is an American Farragut. His armor is already 19 mm vertical and 12,7 mm horizontal.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 21 March 2016 21: 25
      +1
      you do not forget about deck booking ... Now it will fly over the ships from above where it is more likely than on board ... Here I am afraid and 15 mm will not be enough ... Unless to return to armored decks with their "carapace" deck ... But what is even 50-70 mm for modern ammunition ...?
      1. Alex_59
        21 March 2016 21: 38
        0
        Quote: Taoist
        you do not forget about deck booking ...

        Deck counted, of course. 30-35 mm turned out. And traverse too.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 21 March 2016 21: 52
          +1
          So the question arises: what actually can stop the armor in 30 mm? (yes even let in 50?)
          A fragment of a high-explosive artillery shell? The question is who and from where will such an inaccurate fire be fired? After all, a modern naval quick-fire gun, even 75 mm, will simply make holes in such a plate worse than in a colander ... Radar guidance and de facto direct fire ... It made sense to hide from "covers" again from small-caliber shells in the days of manual guidance and unguided shells machine guns and air cannons for assault aircraft at least some sense ...
          But in our case, if the shell flew to the side, then it was guaranteed to hit.
          Again, if we are considering this kind of "mini-citadel protection", then we must also take into account the "closure of the contour" - otherwise any projectile that comes at an angle will simply dive under the protected area and do business inside ... As a result, instead of one "armored box" we get many small and still, in principle, not protecting from anything ...
  29. PPD
    PPD 21 March 2016 21: 01
    0
    All these schemes are very much like fig leaves. Hence the confidence that the missile will fall into this particular armor. And not a meter higher to the left. Summing up to the very point it turned out:
    Quote: Alex_59
    However, I do not see a wild breakthrough in the whole trinity.

    And the meaning of the garden fence?
    Here, some design work will require so much effort and money!
    And not the fact that all this will come in handy.
  30. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 22 March 2016 01: 34
    -2
    Quote: Alex_59
    Quote: Dimon19661
    Author-AK-630 has no cellars, there is a barbet, which, depending on the type of ship, is either part of the superstructure, or a separate component of the superstructure

    Thanks for pointing out the error. I will consider.
    Quote: Dimon19661
    Booking tables are generally ridiculous, you yourself acknowledge the availability of a local reservation, but you give zero weight, where is the logic ???

    There we are talking about the masses before booking, from the original ships. Therefore zero. But here they rightly say that 1144 have armor. Well, let's consider this my mistake.
    Quote: Dimon19661
    In general, the first article was interesting, the second drawn, the third niochem.

    Your right to have an opinion.

    So I’m wondering how you can write such articles, try to say something in them, and at the same time do not even know the basics about the structure of a warship. Although, of course, nobody canceled the sofa-based examination. (((
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 06: 52
      0
      Quote: Dimon19661
      So I wonder how you can write such articles, try to say something in them, and at the same time absolutely not even know the basics about the structure of a warship.

      Well duck write, if you know, not a question. I do not hide that I am an amateur, it’s written in black and white in the first part - the article was written by an amateur, not a professional.
      Quote: Dimon19661
      Although no one canceled the course sofa examination.
      Well, not quite a sofa. All my family are sailors and pilots. So we saw something, touched, climbed, smelled, felt. The husband of the sister of Georgians at the Mirage, for example, was a warrant officer, who was already retired.
  31. jonht
    jonht 22 March 2016 02: 19
    0
    For some reason, everyone forgot that displacement is the mass of displaced water, and therefore increasing the mass you impair the controllability and seaworthiness of the ship, there will be a clear decrease in speed and an increase in the load on the power plant. If you look in history, there was already an ideal coast guard monitor, absolutely round with full armor, five propellers, a low side and two guns ... That's just the speed of this monster was 6 knots in total ....
  32. abc_alex
    abc_alex 22 March 2016 13: 20
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    In general, it seems to me, you need to start considering the issue "from the task". In any case, today I just do not see the tasks that such a "gunboat of the 21st century" should solve. In any case, for the Russian Navy. Likewise, there are no tasks requiring the creation of, for example, strike aircraft carriers. The fleet is not a "thing in itself", it is primarily a tool designed to solve a certain range of tasks. And only after deciding on this circle is it worth discussing which of the tools is better suited for solving it.
    It seems to me that today the construction of the fleet is on a path close to optimal.
    And while everything is very sad with the OVR (minesweepers, and near-field PLO). - but at least there is recognition of this problem.

    I don't see any "gunboats" in this "triptych" yet ...



    Here is one of the options. Of course not a gunboat.

    So, unlike WW1 battleships, a modern strike ship does not combine (cannot combine?) In one hull the main caliber of the compound and armor protection. Why? Well, if we talk about the USSR / RF fleet, it is simply because our attack ships should not be in the zone of shelling by enemy ships. Anti-ship missiles of the Granite / Vulcan class operate at ranges of 500-1000. Harpoon-class anti-ship missiles - maximum 280. In order for a "harpooner" to hit an "Atlant" or "Orlan", he needs to go at least 250 km in the range of their main battery. This is a one-way trip.

    If not a plane.
    The range of the "Fort" complex is 200 km. A harpooning plane has 100 km to launch a rocket.

    Accordingly, the supposed task of the battleship is to move the zone of action of the formation's air defense by 100-150 km from the attack ships. For example, by creating a "curtain" of several armored air defense / missile defense ships located at a distance from the strike core of the compound. What does such a ship need? A minimum of shock capabilities (NK Caliber), air defense of the level of compound and self-defense. BIUS group, similar to Aegis, third-party target designation. The KUG will then look something like this - a shock core (a heavy cruiser, destroyers, an aircraft-carrying reconnaissance cruiser, several nuclear submarines of hunters for submarines and ships), the area of ​​action of AWACS aircraft, a front line of air defense battleships. The battleships take the blow of the AUG air wing, providing the strike core with combat stability.