Military Review

Shipboard armor in the XXI century - all aspects of the problem. Part of 4

220
Shipboard armor in the XXI century - all aspects of the problem. Part of 4



Missiles

Assess the ability to hit armored objects in modern RCC is difficult. Data on the capabilities of combat units are classified. Nevertheless, there are ways to make a similar assessment, albeit with low accuracy and a variety of assumptions.

The easiest way to use the mathematical apparatus of the gunners. The armor penetration rate of artillery shells is theoretically calculated using a variety of formulas. Let us use the simplest and most accurate (as some sources assert) formula of Jacob de Marr. To begin with, we will check it using known artillery pieces data, in which armor penetration is obtained in practice by shooting projectiles on real armor.



The table shows a fairly accurate coincidence of practical and theoretical results. The greatest discrepancy concerns the BS-3 anti-tank gun (almost 100 mm, in theory 149,72 mm). We conclude that according to this formula it is possible to theoretically calculate the armor penetration with a sufficiently high accuracy, but it is impossible to consider absolutely reliable results obtained.

Let's try to make the appropriate calculations for modern PKR. As a "projectile" take the warhead, since the rest of the rocket design does not participate in the penetration of the target.

You also need to keep in mind that the results must be treated critically, due to the fact that the armor-piercing artillery shells are strong enough objects. As can be seen from the table above, the charge accounts for no more than 7% of the weight of the projectile - the rest is thick-walled steel. The warheads of the anti-ship missiles have a significantly larger share of explosives and, accordingly, less durable bodies, which, when they encounter an excessively strong barrier, will rather split themselves than pierce them.



As you can see, the energy characteristics of modern anti-ship missiles in theory completely allow punching through thick enough armor barriers. In practice, the figures obtained can be safely reduced several times, because, as mentioned above, the RCC warhead is not an armor-piercing projectile. However, it can be assumed that the strength of the Brahmos warhead is not so bad that it does not penetrate the barrier into the 50 mm with the theoretically possible 194 mm.

The high flight speeds of modern UN and OHP missiles allow, in theory, without the use of any complicated tricks, to increase their ability to pierce armor in a simple kinetic way. This can be achieved by reducing the proportion of explosives in the mass of warheads and increasing the wall thickness of their buildings, as well as the use of elongated warheads with a reduced cross-sectional area. For example, a decrease in the diameter of the Brahmos warhead in 1,5 times by increasing the rocket length by 0,5 meters and preserving the mass increases the theoretical penetrability calculated by the Jacob de Marr method to 276 mm (an increase by 1,4 times).

Soviet missiles against American armor

The task of defeating armored ships for PKR developers is not new. Back in Soviet times, warheads were created for them, capable of infecting battleships. Of course, such combat units were placed only on operational missiles, since the destruction of such large targets is precisely their task.

In fact, with some ships, armor did not disappear into the rocket era. We are talking about American aircraft carriers. For example, onboard booking of Midway-type aircraft carriers reached 200 mm. Forrestol carriers had 76-mm side armor and a package of longitudinal anti-splinter bulkheads. Booking schemes for modern aircraft carriers are classified, but apparently the armor has not become thinner. It is not surprising that the designers of the “large” anti-ship missiles had to design missiles capable of striking armored targets. And here it is impossible to get rid of with a simple kinetically method of penetration - 200 mm of armor is very difficult to penetrate even with high-speed anti-ship missiles with a flight speed of around 2 M.

Actually, no one hides that one of the types of operational warhead anti-ship missiles was “cumulative-high-explosive”. The characteristics are not advertised, but the ability of the Basalt RCC to penetrate up to 400 mm steel armor is known.

Let's think about the figure - why exactly 400 mm, and not 200 or 600? Even if you keep in mind the thicknesses of armor protection that Soviet anti-ship missiles could meet when attacking aircraft carriers, the 400 mm figure seems incredible and redundant. In fact, the answer lies on the surface. Rather, it does not lie, but cuts the ocean wave with its stem and has a specific name - the battleship Iowa. The armor of this remarkable ship is strikingly slightly thinner than the magic figure of 400 mm. Everything will fall into place if we remember that the beginning of work on the Basalt anti-ship missile system goes back to 1963. The US Navy still had solid armored battleships and cruisers from the WWII era. In 1963, the US Navy had 4 battleships, 12 heavy and 14 light cruisers (4 LK Iowa, 12 TC Baltimore, 12 LK Cleveland, 2 LK Atlanta). Most were in the reserve, but that was the reserve, in order to call in reserve ships in the event of a world war. And the U.S. Navy isn't the only battleship operator. In the same year 1963, there were 16 armored artillery cruisers left in the USSR Navy! They were in fleets other countries.


The battleship of the past and the missile tins of the present. The first one could become a symbol of the weakness of the Soviet RCC, but for some reason went to eternal parking. Did American admirals make a mistake somewhere?

By the 1975 year (the year of the adoption of "Basalt" in service), the number of armored ships of the US fleet was reduced to 4 battleships, 4 heavy and 4 light cruisers. Moreover, the battleships remained an important figure until the decommissioning at the beginning of the 90-x. Therefore, one should not doubt the ability of the BS “Basalt”, “Granite” and other Soviet “large” RCCs to easily penetrate the 400 mm armor, and have a serious armor effect. The Soviet Union could not ignore the existence of "Iowa", because if we assume that it is not capable of destroying this battleship with RK, then it turns out that this ship is simply unbeatable. Why, then, the Americans did not put the construction of unique battleships on the stream? Such a far-fetched logic forces the world to be turned upside down — the designers of the Soviet anti-ship missiles look liars, the Soviet admirals are careless cranks, and the strategists of a country that won the cold war are fools.

Cumulative Armor Penetration Techniques

The design of the warhead "Basalt" is unknown to us. All the pictures published on this issue on the Internet are intended to entertain the public, and not to disclose the characteristics of secret items. For the combat unit, you can give it a high-explosive version, designed for shooting at coastal targets.

However, a number of assumptions can be made about the true content of the “cumulative-high-explosive” warhead. Most likely, such a warhead is a common cumulative charge of large size and weight. The principle of its operation is similar to the way an ATGM or grenade launcher hits its targets. And in this regard, the question arises, how is a cumulative ammunition, capable of leaving a hole of a very modest size on the armor, able to destroy a warship?

To answer this question, you need to understand how cumulative ammunition works. The cumulative shot, contrary to misconceptions, does not burn through the armor. Penetration is provided by a pestle (or, as they say, “impact core”), formed from the copper lining of a cumulative funnel. Pestle has a fairly low temperature, so it does not burn anything. The destruction of steel occurs due to the "washing out" of the metal under the action of the shock core, which has a quasi-liquid (i.e., has the properties of a liquid, while not being a liquid) state. The closest household example to understand how this works is the erosion of ice by a directed stream of water. The diameter of the hole obtained by penetration is approximately 1/5 of the diameter of the ammunition, the penetration depth is up to 5-10 diameters. Therefore, a grenade launcher leaves in armor tank a hole with a diameter of only 20-40 mm.

In addition to the cumulative effect of this type of ammunition have a powerful high-explosive effect. However, the high-explosive component of the explosion with the defeat of the tanks remains outside the armor barrier. It is caused by the fact that the explosion energy is not able to penetrate the reserved space through the hole with a diameter of 20-40 mm. Therefore, inside the tank only those parts that are directly in the path of the shock core are subject to destruction.

It would seem that the principle of action of cumulative ammunition completely eliminates the possibility of its use against ships. Even if the shock core pierces the ship through - only what is in its way will suffer. It is like trying to kill a mammoth with one blow of a knitting needle. The high-explosive action in defeat of the viscera cannot participate at all. Obviously, this is not enough to turn the inside of the ship and cause unacceptable damage to it.

However, there are a number of conditions under which the picture of the action of a cumulative ammunition described above is disturbed not for the best for ships. Let's go back to the armored vehicles. Take the ATGM and release it in the BMP. What picture of destruction will we see? No, we will not find a neat hole with a diameter of 30 mm. We will see a piece of large-area armor ripped out with meat. And behind the armor, the burnt-up, twisted entrails, as if the car had been blown up from the inside.

The thing is that the ATGM shots are designed to defeat tank armor with a thickness of 500-800 mm. It is in them we see the famous neat holes. But when exposed to off-design thin armor (like the BMP - 16-18 mm), the cumulative effect is enhanced by the action of high-explosive. There is a synergistic effect. Armor just breaks out, not withstanding such a blow. And through the hole in the armor, which in this case is no longer 30-40 mm, but the entire square meter, the high-pressure high-pressure front freely penetrates along with fragments of armor and the products of burning explosives. For armor of any thickness, you can pick up a cumulative shot of such power that its action will be not just cumulative, but a cumulative high-explosive. The main thing is that the desired ammunition had sufficient excess power over a specific armor barrier.

The ATGM shot is designed to hit an armor in 800 mm and weighs only 5-6 kg. What will do with armor, just 400 mm thick (2 times thinner), a giant ATGM, weighing about a ton (167 times heavier)? Even without mathematical calculations, it becomes clear that the consequences will be much sadder than after the ATGM hit the tank.


The result of hitting an ATGM in the Syrian Army BMP.


For the thin armor of the BMP, the desired effect is achieved by firing an ATGM with a weight of just 5-6 kg. And for shipboard armor, 400 mm thick, you need a cumulative high explosive warhead weighing 700-1000 kg. Exactly such a weight warhead stand on the Basalts and Granites. And this is quite logical, because the Basalt warhead with a diameter of 750 mm like all cumulative ammunition can penetrate armor, more than 5 thick of its diameters - i.e. minimum 3,75 monolithic steel meters. However, the designers mention only the 0,4 meter (400 mm). Obviously, this is the limiting thickness of the armor, at which the warhead of Basalt has the necessary excess capacity capable of forming a large area break. The barrier in 500 mm will not be broken, it is too strong and will withstand the pressure. In it we will see only the famous neat hole, and the volume reserved - almost does not suffer.

The warhead of Basalt does not pierce the even hole in the armor with thicknesses less than 400 mm. She breaks it out on a large area. In the resulting hole flies the products of burning explosives, a high-explosive wave, fragments of knocked-out armor and fragments of a rocket with the remnants of fuel. The shock core of a cumulative jet of a powerful charge clears the road through a variety of bulkheads deep into the hull. The sinking of the Iowa battleship is the worst, most severe case possible for RCC Basalt. The rest of her goals are at times smaller booking. On aircraft carriers - in the range of 76-200 mm, which, for this CRP, can be considered just a foil.

As was shown above, on cruisers with a displacement and dimensions of the “Peter the Great”, the occurrence of 80-150 mm reservation is possible. Even if this estimate is incorrect, and the thickness will be greater, there will be no insoluble technical problem for RPC designers. Ships of this size today are not a typical target for the RCC TH, and with the possible revival of armor, they will simply be permanently included in the list of typical targets for RCC HE with cumulative high-explosive warheads.

Alternative options

However, other variants of overcoming armor are possible, for example, using a tandem design of a warhead. The first charge is cumulative, the second is high explosive.

The size and shape of the cumulative charge can be completely different. The sapper charges existing since 60-ies eloquently and clearly demonstrate this. For example, a KZU charge with a weight of 18 kg pierces 120 mm of armor, leaving a hole 40 mm wide and 440 mm long. The charge LKZ-80 with a weight of 2,5 kg punches 80 mm of steel, leaving a gap, 5 mm wide and 18 mm long. (http://www.saper.etel.ru/mines-4/RA-BB-05.html).

Appearance charge KZU


The cumulative charge of a tandem warhead can have an annular (toroidal) shape. After exploding the shaped charge and penetration, the main high-explosive charge will easily penetrate into the center of the “donut”. At the same time, the kinetic energy of the main charge is practically not lost. He will still be able to crush several bulkheads and explode with a slowdown deep inside the hull.


The principle of operation of a tandem warhead with a ring shaped charge


The method of breaking through described above is universal and can be used on any RCCs. The simplest calculations show that the ring charge of a tandem warhead as applied to the Brahmos ASM will eat only 40-50 kg of the weight of its 250-kilogram high-explosive warhead.



As can be seen from the table, even the Uran missile can be given some armor-piercing qualities. Opportunities to penetrate the armor of the remaining RCC without any problems block all possible thickness of the reservation, which may appear on ships with a displacement of 15-20 thousand tons.

Armored Battleship

Actually, this would end the conversation about booking ships. All you need is already said. Nevertheless, you can try to imagine how a ship could fit in with a massive armored reservation in the naval system.

The above was shown and proved the futility of booking on ships of existing classes. All that the armor can be used for is the local booking of the most explosive zones in order to prevent their detonation when the RCC is undermined. Such a reservation does not save the RCC from a direct hit.

However, all of the above applies to ships with a displacement of 15-25 thousand tons. That is, modern destroyers and cruisers. Their load reserves do not allow equipping them with armor with thicknesses greater than 100-120 mm. But, the larger the ship, the more load articles that can be allocated for booking. Why so far no one thought about creating a rocket battleship with a displacement of 30-40 thousand tons and booking more than 400 mm?

The main obstacle to creating such a ship in the absence of practical need for such a monster. Of the existing maritime powers, only a few have the economic, technological and industrial power to design and build such a ship. In theory, this could be Russia and the PRC, but in reality only the United States. Only one question remains - why does a US Navy need such a ship?

The role of such a ship in the modern fleet is completely incomprehensible. The US Navy constantly fights with obviously weak opponents against whom such a monster is absolutely not needed. And in the event of the outbreak of war with Russia or China, the US Navy will not go to hostile shores at mines and under torpedoes of submarines. Away from the coast, the task of protecting one's communications, where not several super-battleships are required, but a lot of ships is simpler, and simultaneously in different places, will be solved. This task and solve the numerous American destroyers, the number of which goes into quality. Yes, each of them may be a not very outstanding and strong warship. These are not protected by armor, but fleet workhorses debugged in serial construction.

They look like the T-34 tank - also not the most armored and not the most armed WWII tank, but it was produced in such quantities that the opponents, with their expensive and super-powerful Tigers, did not have to be sweet. Being a piece goods, Tiger could not be present on the entire line of a huge front, unlike the ubiquitous Thirty-Fours. And pride in the outstanding successes of the German tank-building industry did not in any way help the German infantrymen, who were carrying dozens of our tanks, and the Tigers were somewhere else.

It is not surprising that all projects to create a super-cruiser or rocket battleship did not go further than futuristic images. They simply do not need. Developed countries do not sell third world countries such weaponwhich could seriously shake their firm position of the leaders of the planet. Yes and no, third world countries have such money to buy such sophisticated and expensive weapons. But for some time now, developed countries prefer not to arrange disassembly among themselves. There is a very high risk that such a conflict will develop into a vigorous one, which is completely unnecessary and no one needs. They prefer to beat on equal partners by proxy, for example, Turkish or Ukrainian in Russia, Taiwanese in the PRC.

conclusions

All conceivable factors work against the full revival of the ship's armor. There is no acute economic or military need. From a constructive point of view, it is impossible to create a serious reservation of the required area on a modern ship. Unable to protect all vital ship systems. And, finally, in the event that such a reservation does appear - the problem is easily solved by the revision of the RCC warhead. Developed countries quite logically do not want the cost of worsening other fighting qualities to invest in the creation of a reservation, which in principle does not increase the combat capability of ships. However, the widespread introduction of local reservations and the transition to steel superstructures is extremely important. Such a reservation allows the ship to more easily transfer the CRP hits and reduce the amount of damage. However, such a reservation does not save the direct hit of the anti-ship missiles, so it’s simply pointless to put such a task before armor protection.

Information sources used:
V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky "USSR Navy 1945-1991"
V. Asanin "Missiles of the Russian Navy"
A.V. Platonov "Soviet monitors, gunboats and armored boats"
S.N. Mashensky "The Magnificent Seven. Wings" Golden Eagles "
Yu.V. Apalkov "Ships of the Navy of the USSR"
A.B. Shirokorad "Fire sword of the Russian fleet"
S.V. Patyanin, M.Yu. Tokarev, "The fastest fire cruisers. Light cruisers like" Brooklyn "
S.V. Patyanin, "French warriors of World War II"
Sea Collection, 2003 #1 "Iowa Type Battleships"

http://russianships.info/
http://www.navysite.de/
http://www.saper.etel.ru/
http://navsource.narod.ru/
http://www.navsource.org/
http://www.shipbucket.com/
The defeat of the BMP Syrian army ATGM



Shooting RRC project 1164 at the target. The target is hit by two anti-ship missiles. Target length from 130 to 150 meters. The warheads of both missiles pierce the target through the entire length.

Author:
220 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lapkonium
    Lapkonium 22 March 2016 06: 28
    +4
    3M14 and 3M54 mixed up in table number 2.
  2. Urfin
    Urfin 22 March 2016 06: 58
    +6
    Perfectly! This could be the end.
    True, there is one minor "but". The point is only in relation to armor that protects against operational missiles and anti-fragmentation armor.

    It remains to write more articles about the advisability of armor against tactical missiles)

    Therefore, the topic of reservation continue to live on the forum and wait for the next such article on the other categories of booking))
  3. Wedmak
    Wedmak 22 March 2016 07: 06
    +7
    Good articles. I think the holivar "ship armor" can be closed. The author laid out everything that many said and wanted to say in an accessible form and even with calculations.
    As for the toroidal cumulative charge - a very interesting idea, as it was not even thought of.
    1. Throw
      Throw 22 March 2016 07: 12
      -16%
      Mlyn, well, how much can you screw on a topic in which no one understands nichrome.

      Stupidly due to lack of information.

      There was Kaptsov, the armored carrier, now Polyakov, the puncher.

      On the first two sentences, the article would have to be completed, because then comes thick from morning coffee ...
      1. Throw
        Throw 22 March 2016 07: 19
        +23
        Let's better about Zamvolt! wassat
  4. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 22 March 2016 07: 23
    +4
    Thanks to the author. Interesting, reasonable, in the case. With respect to the figures and without high-profile epithets.
  5. Per se.
    Per se. 22 March 2016 07: 34
    +2
    It is impossible to protect all vital ship systems.
    Why? It was the vital systems of the ship that were protected by the armor in the first place. A new RCC will appear, a new method of protection will appear. Finally, what does NATO now have from the anti-ship missiles, analogues of Granit and Basalt? Perhaps, an anti-ship missile of the "Harpoon" type, in addition to its high-explosive effect, has miraculous armor-piercing properties? Maybe wars at sea are possible only under nuclear Armageddon, and the British fought at sea for the Falklands with the USSR? Your "sentence" to the booking, Alexey, is hardly objective, as we would like it to be, more like a biased court, when facts are attracted by pre-drawn conclusions. With the same success, you can prove that the lock on the door is a completely useless thing, a competent thief will come and still open the door. There are no unsinkable tanks, unsinkable battleships, but there are efforts to be spent on this. Reservation makes these efforts more problematic for the enemy, and gives more time to complete combat missions for vehicles with enhanced protection and increased survivability. How to correctly assemble a tank or a battleship, how to protect its most important parts, is another question. By the way, armor of more than 400 mm may well be made of alloys, of composites, and finally, just from spaced bulkheads in the total component. In general, it is not correct to compare tank armor with ship armor, and if you do this, you have to set yourself the goal and prove that armor for tanks is just as useless as for large warships. So do the doors need locks, armor for tanks and an increase in the survivability of ships, when your whole life is in a ship, and around the depths of the sea?
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 22 March 2016 07: 47
      +6
      How many battleships did the USSR build? And the RF? We cannot make a "castle" weighing 50000 tons.

      Well, why should the Americans invent Granites / Basalts?
      1. max702
        max702 22 March 2016 13: 54
        +3
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Well, why should the Americans invent Granites / Basalts?

        That's right, the United States even scored on military air defense as well as on air defense in general, because they understand that Russia will never strike first, and thousands of US bombers do not threaten, like aviation does not threaten the fleet .. they simply do not need this type of troops, all what it is, just in case, and no more .. Their doctrine is based on the attack and the prevention of the enemy’s first strike, and that’s all under this. And for God's sake it is not necessary about missile defense, these are not anti-aircraft systems, but strike complexes deployed in order not to violate the missile treaty.
    2. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 07: 48
      +12
      Quote: Per se.
      Why? It was the vital systems of the ship that were protected by the armor in the first place. A new RCC will appear, a new method of protection will appear. Finally, what does NATO have now from the anti-ship missiles, analogs of Granit and Basalt? Perhaps, an anti-ship missile of the "Harpoon" type, in addition to its high-explosive effect, has miraculous armor-piercing properties? Maybe wars at sea are possible only under nuclear Armageddon, and the British fought at sea for the Falklands with the USSR? Your "sentence" to the reservation, Alexey, is hardly objective, as we would like it to be, more like a biased court, when facts are attracted by pre-drawn conclusions.

      You didn’t seem to read. It’s strange. Vital areas for a modern ship are radars too. Therefore, I write - it is impossible to protect ALL vital areas. SOME - it is possible, ALL - no. In the first part about Harpoon, I did not write about a nuclear war. About the Falklands, too, was in the first part - on the British frigates, armor in any case could not be, and Sheffield only if local.
      Quote: Per se.
      By the way, and armor more than 400 mm may well be from alloys, from composites,
      Can. I suspect that it will fly a pretty penny if you pull it on the whole ship. But I do not reliably claim that I have no information for this.
      Quote: Per se.
      Reservation makes these efforts more challenging for the enemy, and gives more time to complete a combat mission for equipment with enhanced protection, hung survivability.
      I tried to prove this very idea with my articles. Is not it so?
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 22 March 2016 09: 48
        -1
        Quote: Alex_59
        Vital areas for a modern ship are radars too.
        So, if you cannot imagine a protected or duplicated radar, everything else is useless? Under "some" important areas primarily include those that ensure the buoyancy and propulsion of the ship. Even, even if there will be a radar station, as they used to imagine, even if it will be demolished from the attic, even if the ship will lose all its weapons, but if it remains afloat after defeat, if most of the crew survives, it’s just for the sake of that it’s worth thinking about armor. Maybe if it goes to the bottom right away, it's better (who needs it, they say, without a radar)? You draw conclusions, and they are not neutral, and, with reservations, about insufficient information or lack of data. There is no need to "stretch" the armor over the entire ship, but if you do it on a large ship, it will be within reason, and the hardware is no more expensive than the equipment and lives of a trained crew. About the frigates at the Falklands, the fact that they were structurally lacking protection, and the fact that on frigates, the displacement of which approached the light cruisers of the Second World War, there can be no booking, are not the same. In any case, they could have been, though not as "aluminum cans". Understand correctly, there is no advocacy for a steel iron, for a "battleship" without purpose and meaning, but I strongly disagree with the fact that if it is impossible to create a ship with invulnerable vital zones, there is no point in using armor at all. Nothing depends on my opinion, and I do not impose it on anyone. I see no point in repeating myself, thank you for paying attention to my comment and, in general, for working on the article.
    3. aiw
      aiw 22 March 2016 08: 34
      +2
      > prove that armor is as useless for tanks as it is for large warships.

      HERE, when KAZ tanks are compared with the effectiveness of air defense of ships, the death rays will be guaranteed to destroy all infantrymen within the range of the RPG, and the volume of tanks due to the need to deploy all this equipment will grow so much that there will be no way to effectively book them - then m. they will refuse tank armor.

      Tank and ship are two big differences. Unless we are talking about the PT-76 - but by tank standards it was not particularly armored ...
    4. Taoist
      Taoist 24 March 2016 22: 52
      +1
      This article is "not a verdict on armor" but just a clear explanation of the fact that the use of classic armor on warships today is simply inappropriate. This does not mean that if tomorrow there is no technological breakthrough, the fleet will not return to the idea of ​​passive protection. But today the armor (in the classic version) does not provide reliable protection against modern ASP, moreover, their power can be easily and quickly increased in the event of such protection ...
      Your analogy with tanks is both indicative and erroneous ... It is erroneous in the fact that the tank has a much smaller protected volume (which makes it economically possible) and indicative in the fact that the development of tank armor is also moving towards "active" and not passive protection ...
    5. Alex777
      Alex777 26 March 2016 21: 39
      +1
      Respected! What is easier - to configure armadillos or to put new warheads on existing missiles?
      The Americans have no armor-piercing warheads for the sole reason - we have no armadillos.
  6. Serg65
    Serg65 22 March 2016 08: 02
    +5
    good Bravo Alexey! Conclusion ... the military shipbuilding program proceeds from the concept of using the Navy, and not from the desire of someone to have a heavy and cool toy. But the concept, as a girl with character, can change at any moment and it is quite possible that humanity will find a desire to return to armored monsters lol ... The anti-ship missile is a great weapon, but it also has an Aheles heel! In the 80s of the last century this heel was called the Legend ICRC, in 1998 the last apparatus of this system ceased its service and Russian long-range anti-ship missiles lost their eyes and ears. In part, the work of the "Legend" can be replaced by the A-50M AWACS. But in 2009, the first satellite of the new Russian system Liana was launched into orbit. The modern fleet is a symbiosis of a ship group, aviation and space forces.
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 08: 20
      +5
      Quote: Serg65
      In the 80s of the last century this heel was called the Legend ICRC, in 1998 the last apparatus of this system ceased its service and Russian long-range anti-ship missiles lost their eyes and ears.

      Some ships had over-the-horizon radars: Titanite, Monolith (project 1234, 956, now goes to 22350) Monolith - up to 400 km in active mode, but the passive mode is the main one - range to 250 km. Very serious tools, completely autonomous, no dependence on external CPU.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 22 March 2016 08: 28
        -3
        Quote: Alex_59
        overseas radar: Titanite, Monolith (project 1234, 956, now goes to 22350) Monolith - up to 400 km in active mode

        What a good development

        Where can I find detailed information on shipborne overseas radars?
        1. Alex_59
          22 March 2016 08: 45
          +8
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Where can I find detailed information on shipborne overseas radars?

          In university. They teach the theory of the propagation of centimeter radio waves in space. Refraction. Waveguide distribution. But this is long, this 5 years must be spent.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 22 March 2016 09: 36
            -6
            Quote: Alex_59
            They teach the theory of the propagation of centimeter radio waves in space.

            A distinctive feature of the propagation of centimeter-wave radio waves is the almost complete absence of the diffraction phenomenon and straightforward distribution. The earth's surface has practically no noticeable effect on the propagation of these radio waves, which is explained by the use of narrowly directed antennas in this range with a radiation pattern from a few degrees to a fraction of a degree in width.

            Creation of over-the-centimeter radars in principle impossible
            Alex, with all due respect for perseverance, admit that you are wrong and do not break the comedy
            Quote: srelock
            http://www.typhoon-jsc.ru/

            There is nothing about shipborne over-the-horizon radars
            such systems do not exist
            1. Alex_59
              22 March 2016 09: 43
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Alex, with all due respect for perseverance, admit that you are wrong and do not break the comedy

              If I agree with you, then we will both be wrong. smile
              http://radio-1895.ru/izulin07-06.html
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 22 March 2016 10: 11
                -4
                Quote: Alex_59
                If I agree with you, then we will both be wrong.

                No, it’s you who are wrong

                At the specified link http://radio-1895.ru/izulin07-06.html there is no mention of over-the-centimeter radars
                1. Alex_59
                  22 March 2016 10: 14
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  At the specified link http://radio-1895.ru/izulin07-06.html there is no mention of over-the-centimeter radars

                  What, right? How all is bad ... Well, okay, but here:
                  http://forums.airbase.ru/2005/01/t31032--printsipy-dejstviya-zgrls-monolit-i-t-p
                  .3060.html

                  http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/pvo_vmf/rls_garpun-b.html
                  1. Alex_59
                    22 March 2016 10: 19
                    +7
                    Oleg, I don’t want to explain anything more to you about VHF and over-the-horizon radars, go to school, I wasn’t hired by your tutor.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 22 March 2016 10: 40
                      -6
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      What, right?

                      Trust me out

                      1-th link - nothing about over-the-centimeter radars
                      2-th link - harpoon-b, this is a direction finder that can work like a radar (of course, at a line of sight)

                      VHF includes not only the centimeter range, and the radio engineer probably should know about it. Further, the practical use of super refraction is not possible. Wave channels - only in passive mode; active radar cannot work like that. Only radio communications, direction finding or perimeter monitoring systems (e.g. Dew Line - Distant Early Warning Line, DEW Line, 0,3 meter wavelength)

                      Thirdly, nothing is heard about the centimeter shipborne over-the-horizon radars, about which he wrote in all his articles
            2. aiw
              aiw 22 March 2016 09: 56
              +6
              > A distinctive feature of the propagation of radio waves in the centimeter range is the almost complete absence of the diffraction phenomenon

              Oleg, here you are certainly right! But you were told not about Diffraction but about Refraction ... the difference is only in two letters, but what a deafening effect lol
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 22 March 2016 10: 14
                -4
                Quote: aiw
                Oleg, here you are certainly right! But you were told not about Diffraction, but about Refraction ..

                Read the whole quote is not fate

                As for refraction, it does not help at all. Unpredictable change in coefficient. refraction of waves due to the difference in temperature of the air layers, capable of both increasing and decreasing the range of propagation of radar signals. Usually fluctuations within a few percent, serious changes are rare enough not to be taken into account
                1. aiw
                  aiw 22 March 2016 10: 22
                  +7
                  > Read the entire quote is not destiny

                  What is written below is a quote (which was not) or your gag? Oleg, you are wrong, find the courage to admit it. Refraction is used for communication, including on centimeter waves - but what can be used for communication can also be used for location.

                  A link has been sent to you. Who are you, sorry, by education?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    Santa Fe 22 March 2016 10: 49
                    -6
                    Quote: aiw
                    What is written below is a quote (which was not) or your gag?

                    I have already quoted the basic properties of centimeter waves twice. Need to repeat a third time?
                    Almost perfect straightforward distribution

                    The phenomena of superrefraction have the least influence on the waves of this range
                    Quote: aiw
                    A link was thrown to you by a wagon.

                    Does it contain examples of shipborne centimeters overseas radars?
                    Quote: aiw
                    what can be used for communication can be used for location.

                    No, he can not
                    1. aiw
                      aiw 22 March 2016 10: 59
                      +3
                      > Over-refraction phenomena have the least effect on waves in this range

                      Tropospheric radio relay communication with you strongly disagrees. Well, what about the "least" - less than the mm range? Less than submm? And what about the IR?

                      > No, it cannot

                      Justify? Or does the principle of reciprocity in your alternative universe no longer work?
                      1. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 23
                        -6
                        Quote: aiw
                        Tropospheric radio relay communication with you very much disagree.

                        We are talking about radar
                        Quote: aiw
                        Well, what about the "least" - less than the mm range?

                        Less than two other main ranges - decimeter and meter

                        the earth's surface has practically no noticeable effect on the propagation of these (cm) radio waves, which is explained by the use of narrowly directed antennas in this range with a radiation pattern from a few degrees to fractions of a degree wide
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        The radar waves of the locators are made of another material

                        During tropospheric propagation, a large number of reflected radio waves arrive at the receiving point, as a result, the signal about the target parameters is distorted in the most incredible way. Nobody has yet succeeded in creating a radar using this principle.

                        In addition to Alex_59, it was not for nothing that he worked at the radio factory for five years
                      2. Alex_59
                        22 March 2016 12: 17
                        +8
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        During tropospheric propagation, a large number of reflected radio waves arrive at the receiving point, as a result, the signal about the target parameters is distorted in the most incredible way. Nobody has yet succeeded in creating a radar using this principle.

                        In addition to Alex_59, it was not for nothing that he worked at the radio factory for five years

                        Oleg, the whole site is laughing at you, not hiding. Stop carrying this dense heresy. Well, you are mistaken, it happens. Einstein, too, was wrong more than once. I am a duck - I am regularly mistaken. Now - you were mistaken. It happens. Tell me honestly, well, the boys were mistaken, and so on. It looks more worthy. You can’t be a specialist in all areas of science and technology - radio engineering is not your thing.
                      3. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 22 March 2016 12: 26
                        -3
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        Well, you are mistaken, it happens. Einstein, too, was wrong more than once. I am a duck - I am regularly mistaken. Now - you were mistaken.

                        Where is an example of a shipborne over-the-horizon centimeter range radar?
                      4. Alex_59
                        22 March 2016 12: 40
                        +6
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Where is an example of a shipborne over-the-horizon centimeter range radar?

                        Choose any. All overseas.
                    2. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich 22 March 2016 18: 37
                      +4
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Oleg, the whole site is laughing at you, not hiding. Stop carrying this dense heresy. Well, you are mistaken, it happens. Einstein, too, was wrong more than once. I am a duck - I am regularly mistaken. Now - you were mistaken. It happens. Tell me honestly, well, the boys were mistaken, and so on. It looks more worthy. You can’t be a specialist in all areas of science and technology - radio engineering is not your thing.

                      Kaptsov NEVER admits that he is wrong laughing ! How you want it will get out, what you want it will come up with, but NEVER will admit that he is wrong. For it will be the end of everything. This will be the end of Kaptsov - scholar, analyst, expert wink
                      How many did not read his comments, then in my memory I do not remember that such a recognition sounded. Rather, there will be a reference or counter argument lol
                      There is nothing to be done - this type of personality request "Narcissism" hi
                    3. Alex_59
                      22 March 2016 18: 50
                      +6
                      Quote: Rurikovich
                      Kaptsov NEVER admits that he is wrong

                      Come on, don’t mock. He is not a stupid person, for some reason he just decided that looking funny or making mistakes is bad. In my opinion, making mistakes is not bad. Bad - do not think with your head. But he still thinks, albeit very peculiarly. That the person did not receive those. education is also not a reason for ridicule, not everyone was lucky. Especially when the humanist tries to understand technically complex things - in principle, deserves respect. Only stubbornness and perseverance sometimes do harm.
            3. Alex_59
              22 March 2016 10: 59
              +11
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              No, he can not

              Are the radar waves of locators made of another material than the radio waves of communications? Probably pieces of armor interspersed in the radio waves and they spread differently. laughing
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 22 March 2016 11: 19
                +7
                Quote: Alex_59
                Probably pieces of armor interspersed in the radio waves and they spread differently.

                Armored Radio Waves are Resistant to Reb. And with narrowly targeted exposure, they can drown a modern destroyer. Why? Because there is no armor on it!
              2. aiw
                aiw 22 March 2016 11: 31
                +6
                The topic of torsion fields is not disclosed! Give EW on torsion fields and armor from the air !! Two psychics on each bridge !!! Bioenergy guns are our main caliber !!! fellow
              3. Firstvanguard
                Firstvanguard 23 March 2016 18: 44
                +1
                + antimatter emitters, molecular destructors, gamma blasters and .. oh! death star!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Serg65
    Serg65 22 March 2016 11: 32
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    such systems do not exist

    laughing Oh, how you, Oleg, it’s a shame that your friends don’t have such radar!
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 37
      -9
      Quote: Serg65
      Oh, how you, Oleg, it’s a shame that your friends don’t have such radar!

      Want to prove that such radars exist?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 22 March 2016 11: 47
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Want to prove that such radars exist?

        The fact that over-the-horizon radars exist, you yourself know this, but the fact that they work in the decameter range is your truth.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 22 March 2016 11: 49
          0
          Quote: Serg65
          The fact that over-the-horizon radars exist, you yourself know this.

          Coastal - definitely. With ship-harder
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 22 March 2016 11: 55
            +3
            Quote: Spade
            Coastal - definitely. With ship-harder

            At a glance ... the Mineral-ME complex
  • srelock
    srelock 22 March 2016 16: 48
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Quote: srelock
    http://www.typhoon-jsc.ru/

    There is nothing about shipborne over-the-horizon radars
    such systems do not exist

    http://www.typhoon-jsc.ru/index.php/production-and-services/special-purpose/mine
    ral-me

    And suddenly inspired ... laughing
  • srelock
    srelock 22 March 2016 08: 56
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

    What a good development
    Where can I find detailed information on shipborne overseas radars?


    http://www.typhoon-jsc.ru/
  • Serg65
    Serg65 22 March 2016 11: 30
    +5
    Quote: Alex_59
    overseas radar: Titanite, Monolith (project 1234, 956, now goes to 22350) Monolith - to 400 km in active mode, but the passive mode is the main one - range to 250 km

    Alexei, without space target designation, ships and nuclear submarines of 1164, 1144, 21631, 855, 949A to detect the enemy will need to enter the operational area of ​​the use of carrier-based aircraft, which greatly reduces the success of the operation. Yes, and reconnaissance of the area in diameter 800-900 km is just a miser with the dimensions of the ocean.
  • mixdiur
    mixdiur 22 March 2016 08: 20
    0
    Informative! Thank you.
  • aiw
    aiw 22 March 2016 08: 27
    +1
    Thank you for the article. It seems like the only actual booking option is the local booking of vital nodes + ensuring the connections between them and the strength of the rest of the hull "to break" (so that the ship does not fold in half after being hit by one anti-ship missile).

    An armored citadel of the type of a battleship will only aggravate the situation - undermining a high explosive warhead inside will be much worse than undermining a similar warhead inside a similar unarmored volume. In the second case, we get the destruction zone in the pitchfork of the sphere; in the first case, the walls of the citadel will not allow the blast wave to go outside.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 22 March 2016 08: 57
    -6
    The simplest calculations show that the ring charge of the tandem warhead as applied to the Bramos anti-ship missile system will eat only 40-50 kg of the weight of its 250-kilogram high explosive warhead.

    And not the simplest calculations show otherwise. The primary charge does not make the weather. The entire payload will be "devoured" by the very design of such a warhead

    Anti-bunker KEPD TAURUS with 500 kg tandem warhead, for some reason, contains only 56 kg BB in the main striking element (penetrator). This corresponds to a primitive exoset warhead.

    There is only one explanation for this - the penetrator must have extremely high fur. strength to withstand the explosion of the cumulative part, the destruction of the rocket and the load during further passage through the obstacle. Hence - a small coefficient. filling the penetrator. Otherwise, the "needle" will simply break when passing through a narrow channel in the armor.

    The result: we get a large and heavy (1,3 tons) subsonic missile with a half-ton warhead, which causes damage like the light Exocet. Moreover, it is still not a fact that it will pass through six-inch armored steel with a cemented outer layer. This is not soft soil and concrete that you can easily hammer a nail into. But try to get the bunch at least on a regular rail!

    To defeat modern ships, you can not try so hard. Just load the warhead with a couple of hundred kg of TNT and smash the unprotected destroyer.

    Therefore, all the calculations presented by Alex are nothing more than figures from the ceiling, otherwise I will have to explain to the German TAURUS engineers that they are crooked goofs
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 09: 11
      +5
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Anti-bunker KEPD TAURUS

      She is concrete slaughter. The example is incorrect. Concrete is not steel, is it ?. KZU engineering munition mentioned in my article (http://www.saper.etel.ru/mines-4/RA-BB-05.html) pierces 120 mm of armor steel, or
      1000 mm concrete, or 1500 mm concrete. The difference is not noticeable?
      Judging by the weight of the cumulative charge, your Taurus, it is close to the Soviet KZ-4 charge weighing 63 kg. (http://www.saper.etel.ru/mines-4/RA-BB-04.html) He punches 0,5 meters of steel armor, or 2 meters of reinforced concrete, or 5 meters of soil.
      It is logical that in Taurus the high-explosive part is also very durable, this is due to the fact that it has to climb through narrow passages in concrete and soil 2-5 meters long. In my calculations, a high-explosive warhead on 2-5 did not need to climb meters — there is only 100-200 mm.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      otherwise he should explain to the German TAURUS engineers that they are suckers

      This is not to explain to them, but to someone else. Designers of Taurus made a normal Concrete Combat Unit.
      1. Operator
        Operator 22 March 2016 09: 32
        +2
        I fully support - the difference anti-bunker KEPD TAURUS (with metal penetrator) from armor-piercing Warhead "Vulkana" (with a shock core) can be seen from the name corresponding to the scope.

        The anti-bunker warhead is designed to break through several meters of soil and reinforced concrete, the armor-piercing warhead - several hundred millimeters of steel.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 22 March 2016 09: 58
          -8
          Quote: Operator
          from the armor-piercing warhead "Vulcan" (with a shock core)

          Link lead shy?
          1. Operator
            Operator 22 March 2016 11: 51
            +1
            Enjoy
            http://saperka.ru/kumulyativnyj-zaryad-kz-4
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 22 March 2016 12: 03
              -5
              Quote: Operator
              http://saperka.ru/kumulyativnyj-zaryad-kz-4

              KZ-4 can be used in packaging and without packaging. For punching horizontal thicknesses, the charge is set in the package on open legs. The KZ-4 charge breaks through protective layers from a distance. The effectiveness of the charge, depending on the distance to the punctured obstacles are given in table. 8.4.

              Where is it about the volcano with a shock core?
              1. Operator
                Operator 22 March 2016 12: 07
                +3
                Oleg, where do you get bonuses - at the NSA or RUMO? laughing
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 22 March 2016 09: 55
        -8
        Quote: Alex_59
        Concrete is not steel, is it ?.

        From this, your hypothesis is even worse
        Quote: Alex_59
        punches 120 mm armored steel, or 1000 mm reinforced concrete, or 1500 mm concrete. The difference is not noticeable?

        First, not armored, but it’s not known which
        Secondly, what is the width of the gap left by 18-kg cum. charge? 4 centimeter
        Does it somehow help to shove another 40-50 kg of explosives into the inside? and, of course, will cause fatal damage to the ship))

        Quote: Alex_59
        It penetrates 0,5 meters of steel armor, or 2 meters of reinforced concrete

        At least out of respect for the numbers, read my own link
        The depths of holes in steel and reinforced concrete vary by 5-10 times. Also, how does the resistance of steel and reinforced concrete differ (about which I spoke with an example about driving nails into a rail)
        Quote: Alex_59
        It is logical that in Taurus the high-explosive part is also very durable, this is due to the fact that it has to climb through narrow passages in concrete and soil 2-5 meters long

        Your miracle rocket will have to crawl through a narrow hole in the armor, at speeds where the slightest touch of the wall will destroy the long penetrator. And ahead is a longitudinal armored bulkhead
        1. Alex_59
          22 March 2016 10: 02
          +7
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          First, not armored, but it’s not known which

          Yes, you’re already sick of it, are links too lazy to open chtoli?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 22 March 2016 10: 09
            +1
            This will not work on ammunition, which by default has a high speed.
            1. aiw
              aiw 22 March 2016 10: 13
              0
              > This will not work on default ammo with high velocity.

              belay Why? In general, an ammunition that has a speed lower than the speed of sound in penetrated armor has a not very high speed ... wink
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 22 March 2016 10: 39
                0
                Quote: aiw
                Why? In general, an ammunition that has a speed lower than the speed of sound in penetrated armor has a not very high speed ...

                Because time.
                A) The greater the speed, the greater the distance between the leading and main charge
                B) The complexity of undermining the ring of ammunition at an optimal distance
                C) the difficulty of knocking out the "plug" At high speeds for a penetrator with a HE charge it will not matter whether the cumulative precharge is triggered or not.
                1. aiw
                  aiw 22 March 2016 10: 44
                  -1
                  A) RCC length - 5 meters or more. Enough?

                  B) Yes, but it does not have to be circular, the channel from the usual cumulative is enough to radically weaken the plate.

                  B) Generally no difficulties. An ordinary armor-piercing projectile pierces an UNAIRED plate half its caliber as min., This is at a target’s speed of less than 2M. On the finished channel, but at a speed of 3M ...
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 22 March 2016 11: 02
                    0
                    Quote: aiw
                    RCC length - 5 meters or more. Enough?

                    I don’t think so. It will be about tens of meters

                    Quote: aiw
                    Yes, but it does not have to be circular, the channel from the usual cumulative is enough to drastically weaken the plate.

                    Extra hassle. No "radical" will happen; moreover, the use of a cumulative precharge will affect the main penetrator, at least drastically reducing its speed.

                    Quote: aiw
                    B) Generally no difficulties. An ordinary armor-piercing projectile pierces an UNAIRED plate half its caliber as min., This is at a target’s speed of less than 2M. On the finished channel, but at a speed of 3M ...

                    At 3M for the penetrator there will be no difference whether the ring worked or not.
                    At school you were shown the experience with a weight "where the thread will break"?

                    An ammunition with such an action at the target should look like a long column with a cumulative ring precharge, then a medium high-explosive charge to knock out the "plug", then the main penetrating HE charge.
                    1. aiw
                      aiw 22 March 2016 11: 12
                      +2
                      > I don't think so. It will be about tens of meters

                      Justify?

                      > Extra hassle. No "radical" will happen

                      Mdya Go get acquainted with the basics of mechanics of a deformable solid, it is better to pair with Kaptsov.

                      > Ammunition with such an action on target should look like a long column with a cumulative ring precharge, then a medium high-explosive charge to knock out the "plug", then the main penetrating HE charge.

                      You compare the mass of the cork and the mass of the penetrator or something ... the penetrator itself will beat it perfectly.
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 22 March 2016 11: 20
                        0
                        Quote: aiw
                        You compare the mass of the cork and the mass of the penetrator or something ... the penetrator itself will beat it perfectly.

                        Why do people sometimes break their spines when they hit water? She's liquid ...
                      2. aiw
                        aiw 22 March 2016 11: 29
                        +2
                        How many people broke the spine about a drop of water hanging freely in the air?

                        If the penetrator is capable of piercing armor without a leading charge, then it is definitely capable of independently knocking out a cork cut even from a thicker sheet. It is a fact.
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 22 March 2016 11: 37
                        0
                        Quote: aiw
                        How many people broke the spine about a drop of water hanging freely in the air?

                        If the penetrator is capable of piercing armor without a leading charge, then it is definitely capable of independently knocking out a cork cut even from a thicker sheet. It is a fact.

                        Okay, the water example did not pass.

                        Punching bag example. Why is it that with a sharp, regular hit it deviates less?
                      4. aiw
                        aiw 22 March 2016 11: 47
                        +4
                        Oh my god ... listen, well enough already - I'm still a candidate of physical and mathematical sciences, I work in my specialty.

                        With a correct (sharp) blow, the impulse of the hand is transmitted pearly, since the mass of the arm is much less than the mass of the pear, the speed and deviation are small.

                        In case of a wrong blow, this is not a blow, but a push, the arm’s pace is smaller but the legs work - the transmitted momentum (due to the emphasis on the floor) is much higher.

                        But in our case, the mass of the cork is much less than the mass of the penetrator. So the analogy with the pear is irrelevant.

                        Can you justify your position regarding the time and the need to knock out the cork with an extra charge not in the language of analogies but in a normal physical language? There through masses, forces, stresses, accelerations, impulses?
                      5. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 54
                        -9
                        Quote: aiw
                        I’m still a Ph.D., working in my specialty.

                        Ph.D. no longer wants to argue about the features of tropospheric radar?)))
                      6. aiw
                        aiw 22 March 2016 12: 03
                        +10
                        It’s impossible to argue with you Oleg - you ignore your opponent’s arguments, don’t own the equipment and bear nonsense in response.

                        I repeat the question - have you already canceled the principle of reciprocity in your alternative universe? If not canceled, location is possible. If canceled - bye, it still works in our universe, but you and Napoleon argue or whoever is in your next room ...
                      7. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 22 March 2016 12: 26
                        -11%
                        Quote: aiw
                        I repeat the question - have you already canceled the principle of reciprocity in your alternative universe?

                        You wrote an answer - read is not fate?
                      8. aiw
                        aiw 22 March 2016 12: 30
                        +3
                        Brazenly lying, you have not written a word about the principle of reciprocity.
                2. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 22 March 2016 11: 57
                  +1
                  Through masses, forces, tension? Give it a try. At the same time, you will understand why such armor-piercing ammunition does not exist, while users are very complaining about the insufficient armored effect of the same sub-caliber armor-piercing shells.
                3. aiw
                  aiw 22 March 2016 12: 05
                  +3
                  You’re an artilleryman - you’re holding cards. I, as a purely shatal person, understand that:

                  1) such warheads are very possible and relevant against armored ships.

                  2) Against tanks, they are meaningless, you can create a much more effective model in the same dimensions and mass. Why - already wrote above.
                4. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 37
                  0
                  Quote: aiw
                  You’re an artilleryman - you’re holding cards.

                  Precisely because the gunner, I understand that the simpler, the more reliable.

                  In addition, I understand that the weight of the armor-piercing warhead RCC is higher than the weight of a regular one. With all the ensuing problems.
                5. aiw
                  aiw 22 March 2016 12: 41
                  0
                  > Precisely because an artilleryman, I understand that the simpler, the more reliable.

                  Tady back to kaaronadami, ballista and boarding! Arly Burke from the carronades can be blown up if you approach the distance of the shot ... and even against the dagger and boarding sabers in the cramped corridors their harpoons and tomahawks cannot do anything else! fellow
                6. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: aiw
                  Tady back to the kaaronads, ballista

                  Are you sure this is easier? In vain.
  • Operator
    Operator 22 March 2016 11: 42
    -1
    Ring shaped charge is not the most effective solution for breaking through ship's armor.

    For example, a short-focus cumulative charge KZ-0,5 with a diameter of 4 mm and a weight of 410 kg (including TG-63 explosive with a weight of 50 kg) installed with a copper cladding of a cumulative recess 49 mm in diameter is punched in armor with a thickness of XNUM mm hole diameter 220 mm

    http://saperka.ru/kumulyativnyj-zaryad-kz-4

    Do you have doubts about the ability of the Vulcan radar seeker to correctly determine the moment of detonation of an armor-piercing warhead at a distance of 1 meter from an obstacle for optimal operation of a short-focus shaped charge with a diameter of 800 mm and a weight of 450 kg (including explosives weighing 350 kg) with a diameter copper cladding 400 mm, armor penetration 600 mm and hole diameter 200 mm?

    Due to the effective expansion of high-speed fragments from the armor and copper cladding along the reserved space, it is not required to additionally introduce any high-explosive fragmentation into the punched hole.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 22 March 2016 11: 59
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Do you have doubts about the ability of the Vulcan radar seeker to correctly determine the moment of detonation of an armor-piercing warhead at a distance of 1 meter from the obstacle for optimal operation of a short-focus shaped charge 800 mm in diameter and 450 kg in weight (including explosives weighing 350 kg) with a diameter copper cladding 400 mm, armor penetration 600 mm and a hole diameter of 200 mm?

      Yes. And there are very big doubts.
      1. Operator
        Operator 22 March 2016 12: 14
        -1
        If you are in doubt about the accuracy of determining the distance to the target by the radar method, then there is also a laser with an error of several centimeters at a distance of several meters.

        The moment of undermining the armor-piercing warhead of the anti-ship missiles at the optimal distance from the obstacle is determined by the GOS calculator taking into account the actual speed of the rocket.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 24
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          another laser with an error of several centimeters at a distance of several meters.

          Working with discreteness, allowing for blasting at the optimum distance? There are no such.
        2. Operator
          Operator 22 March 2016 12: 53
          +3
          Air-to-air missile RVV-BD - windows on the lateral surface serve as illuminators for laser rangefinders with centimeter accuracy for determining the distance at supersonic speeds of the missile and target
        3. Lopatov
          Lopatov 22 March 2016 13: 02
          0
          Quote: Operator
          RVV-DB

          8)))
          Why does this rocket need "centimeter accuracy", dear?
        4. Operator
          Operator 22 March 2016 13: 14
          +1
          The main purpose of installing laser rangefinders on board air-to-air missiles is to eliminate interference from the electronic warfare of attacked aircraft.

          But if there is a laser on board the rocket, then it’s stupid to undermine a high-explosive fragmentation warhead with an accuracy of plus or minus the bastard and deprive yourself of the opportunity to form an optimal fragmentation field.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 06
    -7
    Quote: Alex_59
    Mentioned by me in the article KZU engineering ammunition (http://www.saper.etel.ru/mines-4/RA-BB-05.html) breaks through 120 mm armored steelor
    1000 mm concrete, or 1500 mm concrete.

    This is a lie, because on the link you provided there is no mention of armor
    conventional metal structures

    Now, regarding KZ-4
    a cumulative charge of 63 kilo mass pierces a hole with a diameter of 8 centimeters. Now tell us how to evenly charge through it containing at least 50 kg of explosives at transonic speed

    about 0,5 meters of armor and 2 meters of reinforced concrete, consider this a typo in the training manual. The same charge UMP (like all other charges) miraculously has an 10-fold difference when piercing steel (not armored!) And reinforced concrete, which is well correlated with practice
    1. Operator
      Operator 22 March 2016 11: 57
      +3
      The KZ-4 sapper charge installed at a distance of 0,5 meters from the 300-mm armor pierces a hole with a diameter of 110 mm in it, which is equal to 1 / 2 of the diameter of the copper lining of the cumulative charge extraction.

      The explosive capacity of KZ-4 is 49 kg to 63 kg of the total mass of the charge.

      Fragments of an armored cork and copper cladding with an expansion speed of 2-3 km / s in the near-field space serve as fragments.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 11
        0
        Key phrase
        Quote: Operator
        distance mounted


        With flying ammunition, things are much more complicated. And by the way, at what distance should the OP penetrator be from the precharge to undermine 49 kg. BB did not affect him?
        1. Operator
          Operator 22 March 2016 12: 34
          0
          With a laser rangefinder and a modern processor as part of the GOS, it is not difficult to calculate the moment of undermining the RCC warhead at a given point from the armor.

          In the case of using an armor-piercing warhead with a short-focus cumulative charge similar to KZ-4, there is no need to additionally use any precharge or penetrator.

          By the way, in front of the anti-ship missile warhead there is always a radar seeker with a length of about a meter (which is equal to the optimal distance for detonating a short circuit with a diameter of 800 mm), therefore it is quite possible to use a contact fuse as part of the Vulcan warhead.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 46
            0
            Quote: Operator
            With a laser rangefinder and a modern processor as part of the GOS, it is not difficult to calculate the moment of undermining the RCC warhead at a given point from the armor.

            You all forget that RCC is flying.

            Accordingly, the higher the speed, the more often the laser range finder must determine the distance to the target in order to maintain the necessary accuracy. I do not think that in hypersound such laser rangefinders are possible in principle.


            Quote: Operator
            By the way, in front of the anti-ship missile warhead there is always a radar seeker with a length of about a meter (which is equal to the optimal distance for detonating a short circuit with a diameter of 800 mm), therefore it is quite possible to use a contact fuse as part of the Vulcan warhead.

            We will calculate ... A meter from a contact fuse to a precharge, ten meters to prevent the effect of a precharge on the penetrator and to ensure the time of detonation of the precharge, the formation of the CS and penetration of her armor.

            Doesn't the long rocket hurt?
            1. aiw
              aiw 22 March 2016 12: 51
              +3
              > I don’t think that such laser rangefinders are possible in principle on hypersound.

              Ghm ... he will only have to be five times faster than usual. There is a margin for speed by several orders of magnitude.

              > ten meters to prevent the influence of the precharge on the penetrator and to ensure the precharge detonation time,

              Again 25t for fish money, well, as much as you can! Can you somehow justify that a delay of 10/1500 = 6.6 ms is needed? Not 2ms, not 4ms, namely 6.6, and no less?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 22 March 2016 13: 14
                0
                Quote: aiw
                Ghm ... he will only have to be five times faster than usual. There is a margin for speed by several orders of magnitude.

                Count. For example, 1000 m / s. If accuracy in centimeter is needed, it is necessary to produce 100000 pulses per second. Which is five times more likely than is available for sufficiently large geodetic rangefinders.
              2. aiw
                aiw 22 March 2016 13: 30
                +6
                belay

                Firstly, there is no need to figure out 100 thousand pulses per second if you need 1cm accuracy. The speed of the rocket is known and changes quite slowly (thanks to Newton’s second law), the speed of the target is generally pretty penny ... and what interests me first of all is not the distance to the target but the position of the target in the direction of the rocket.

                Secondly, EU-but surveyors do not need such hellish performance characteristics. But (as if) my laptop has a frequency of 2 GHz, there is a bunch of FPGAs with frequencies for GHz. Over 10 thousand cycles FPGA can do a lot.

                Yours and Kaptsov have a common misfortune - you say "since this is not there, it means it is impossible to do it." In fact, very often, if something is not there, then it simply was not needed.

                About lasers, for example - the generation of pulses with frequencies of GHz is commonplace for FOCLs. There is no problem making a range finder with the same pulse frequency, it just gave up to no one. For now.
          2. Operator
            Operator 22 March 2016 13: 04
            0
            Well, there are no precharges and penetrators in the short-focus cumulative warhead - it is completely self-sufficient for breaking through armor and creating a fragmentation field in the armored space.

            The time of detonation of explosives and the formation of CS can be estimated at ten thousandths of a second (at a detonation speed of 9000 m / s at a charge length of 800 mm), which is equivalent to 10 cm of the distance of flight of the rocket at a speed of 1000 m per second.

            Well, the length of the GOS is not a meter, but a meter and 10 cm (for the use of a contact fuse), that's all.
  • aiw
    aiw 22 March 2016 10: 02
    +3
    > Your miracle rocket will have to crawl through a narrow hole in the armor, at speeds where the slightest touch of the wall will destroy the penetrator. And in front is a longitudinal armored bulkhead

    And how did the shells of the GK battleships cope without any cumulative stray ... probably these cumulative stray only interfere, and the developers of all kinds of sophisticated tandem warheads just sawing folk money?

    Oleg, when you are in yourself, it’s even interesting to read you. But when it bears you ... fool
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 12
      -2
      Quote: aiw
      And how did the shells of the GK battleships cope without any cumulative stray ..

      yes as usual
      They accounted for 2% of the mass

      The rest is a solid array of steel
      1. aiw
        aiw 22 March 2016 11: 18
        +2
        In-in. So, if a channel is made the leading cumulative, penetration will increase. Or you can increase the filling of explosives with the same penetration.

        In the municipality, if you make an all-metal head for breaking through at the RCC warhead, and then place an explosive charge relative to a thin-walled glass, it will perfectly pass anywhere and everywhere. Especially if the plate is weakened by the cum channel.

        But the artillery shell cannot do this - it will collapse in the barrel when fired, the walls of the glass with explosives will not withstand the load created by the tip. When breaking through the slab there are no such problems - the explosive has a much lower density.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 31
          -4
          Quote: aiw
          So, if a channel is made the leading cumulative, penetration will increase.

          just like mass
          the mass of 381 mm of the projectile without any leading cumulatives was almost 900 kg

          Do many modern rockets have such warheads?
          Quote: aiw
          and then place the explosive charge relatively thin-walled glass - It will be great to go anywhere and everywhere.

          Tell the creators of Taurus about it.
          1. aiw
            aiw 22 March 2016 11: 35
            +3
            > as well as mass

            S-but to say all this fuss with tandems is an attempt to reduce the mass while maintaining armor penetration.

            > Tell the creators of Taurus about it

            Oleg, you have already been told that the example of a concrete-breaking warhead is absolutely incorrect. The penetration physics is completely different, the loads on the penetrator are different - the thickness of the armor is less than the diameter of the warhead, the thickness of the concrete of the hopper is much larger than the diameter of the warhead. Fu to be like that. fool
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 43
              -4
              Quote: aiw
              an attempt to reduce weight while maintaining armor penetration.

              As you can see, it turns out badly

              even against fragile and relatively soft reinforced concrete
              Quote: aiw
              other penetrator loads

              naturally, they are much lower than when meeting with high-quality armor steel
              Quote: aiw
              armor thickness less than warhead diameter

              The diameter of the hole in the sand and concrete is much larger than the hole in the armor

              The example of war godfather cited by Alex. charge - 63 kg BB, hole diameter 8 cm
              now you can try to pass through this "eye of the needle" a penetrator containing 50 kg of explosives at transonic speed
              1. aiw
                aiw 22 March 2016 11: 51
                +5
                > As you can see, it turns out bad

                How do you know?

                The rest of your nonsense is already too lazy to comment. Oleg, instead of writing nonsense here, you would go to learn / remember physics. At least within the university. I'm serious. Because if you completely ignore the opponent’s arguments (let's say the elementary fact that a penetrator capable of passing through a monolithic slab will pass through the slab with a corner ear is much easier) - then what and how can you talk about it? Ugh ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 22 March 2016 12: 06
                  -5
                  Quote: aiw
                  Because if you completely ignore your opponent’s arguments

                  Why should I read that nonsense about the propagation of centimeter radio waves and the existence of tropospheric radars that you carried just a couple of minutes ago
                  Quote: aiw
                  o a penetrator capable of passing through a monolithic slab will pass through a slab with a corner ear much easier

                  What is the fact, where is the confirmation
                  Quote: aiw
                  Ugh ..

                  Mutually
                2. aiw
                  aiw 22 March 2016 12: 11
                  +3
                  > Why would I read that nonsense about the propagation of centimeter radio waves

                  Anything that does not fit into your picture of the world is nonsense? You were given a link about the distribution of see waves in the troposphere. It is a fact. If you are unable to understand what is written there, then you don’t need to flood on topics in which you are not competent, go read about principe reciprocity.

                  > What is this fact, where is the confirmation

                  Either learn MDTT (from there it comes out) or try to break through a sheet of at least thick plastic from scratch, and then pre-drill a small hole.
  • spravochnik
    spravochnik 22 March 2016 10: 58
    +4
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    (about which I spoke with an example about driving nails into a rail)


    To give such an example as applied to shipboard and anti-ship missiles is simply the top of near-engineering thinking. lol . To match this comparison, thickness side armor should be a few meters. And such will swim?
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 22 March 2016 10: 04
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    She is concrete slaughter. The example is incorrect. Concrete is not steel, is it ?.

    That's right. Steel will be stronger. Because armor-piercing ammunition with the leading cumulative and main high-explosive does not exist. If the main one falls into the reserved space, then only in the form of fragments.
    1. aiw
      aiw 22 March 2016 10: 09
      +2
      Mne ... please tell me why conventional armor-piercing shells fall into the armored production as a whole, and in the case of a leading cumulative will be destroyed?

      The fact that such shells do not exist is most likely due to the fact that they are not needed - there is no purpose for them. In tanks, this is clearly redundant ...
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 22 March 2016 10: 18
        0
        Quote: aiw
        Mne ... please tell me why conventional armor-piercing shells fall into the armored production as a whole, and in the case of a leading cumulative will be destroyed?

        Because the leading cumulative one has weight.


        Quote: aiw
        The fact that such shells do not exist is most likely due to the fact that they are not needed

        Due to its inefficiency.

        Well, about "no goals" ... The developers are forced to go to work on the most complex "crowbars" that are fragmented after the passage of the armored barrier. What is much more complicated and more expensive than the cumulative + high-explosive fragmentation scheme.
        1. aiw
          aiw 22 March 2016 10: 31
          +2
          > Because the leading cumulative has weight.

          So what? The penetration rate of a plate weakened by a cumulative channel will be much higher. Do you know how seamless pipes do?

          > But what about "no goals" ... Developers are forced to go to work on the most complex fragmented after passing through the armored barrier "lomam". What is much more complicated and more expensive than the cumulative + high-explosive fragmentation scheme.

          fool since when did a sub-caliber projectile become more complicated than a tandem projectile? if we are talking about the defeat of the tank, then the ratio of the thickness of the armor to the armored volume of the tank is such that any armored action in the event of penetration of the armor is enough for the eyes. That is why they do not bother with the leading cumulative - if the stream into the tank passed then the khan’s tank, the crew was welded. The story with the ship is completely different, but so far there are no such urgent targets for such missiles - there are no missiles themselves either.

          Kaptsov and Co. forget that the warhead can dive beneath the ship (if it doesn’t drown it, it’s a rotorcraft khan, and it’s also pulling all kinds of mechanisms from the foundations), it can also hammer into the underwater part of the side — in this case, the energy of an ordinary armor-piercing warhead RCC to break through the PTZ is enough for eyes.
          1. Alex_59
            22 March 2016 10: 41
            +4
            Quote: aiw
            if the jet into the tank passed then the khan’s tank, the crew was welded.

            No, here you are wrong. In a tank, a cumulative stream destroys the insides that are only in its path. It does not create any wild increase in temperature or pressure from inside the tank.
            1. aiw
              aiw 22 March 2016 10: 53
              +1
              yes, it's my fault, about "cooked" I was wrong. But nevertheless, due to the tight layout of the tank, the likelihood that a simple penetration of the kum.jet will be enough is very high.
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 22 March 2016 10: 52
            +1
            Quote: aiw
            So what? The penetration rate of a plate weakened by a cumulative channel will be much higher.

            Not really. Because time


            Quote: aiw
            since when did a sub-caliber projectile become more complicated than a tandem projectile?

            You, apparently, did not understand what it was about. It is about creating special weakened annular zones on the penetrator, along which it will split after passing through the armor barrier. In this case, the "crowbar" must have sufficient strength so that this fragmentation does not occur before breaking through the armor
            1. aiw
              aiw 22 March 2016 11: 24
              +2
              > Not really. Because the time

              The speed of the main charge is in no way greater than the speed of blurring armor with a jet. Accordingly, the approach time will be longer than the blur time.

              You are striving to draw an analogy with so-called analogies ... at such a scale, ship's armor (even from Kaptsov) is a thin sheet (in terms of size of the ship). And the rocket has dimensions much larger than the thickness of the armor. And the main task is to put more explosives behind the armor, there is no doubt about the penetration of the armor.

              With the defeat of tanks, the task is completely different - to break through at least somehow and stick through at least something. Well, yes, it will be fragmented subcalier efficiently crumbling the inside of the tank. but the usual quite efficiently copes with this.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 22 March 2016 11: 47
                +1
                Quote: aiw
                The speed of the main charge is in no way greater than the speed of blurring armor with a jet.

                More. Fuse response speeds, detonation and cumulative jet formation rates, penetration rates
                1. aiw
                  aiw 22 March 2016 12: 00
                  +1
                  The speed of the main charge let 1km / s. The speed of the cum jet in the air is 2-12 km / s. The speed of the fuse and detonation has nothing to do with it.

                  I would somehow understand if you were talking about the shock wave of a leading charge reflected from the armor ...

                  Oh yes, the count of time - nothing prevents you from shooting forward a leading charge when approaching a target.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 17
                    -1
                    Quote: aiw
                    The speed of the fuse and detonation has nothing to do with it.

                    At this time, the flying penetrator freezes?

                    Quote: aiw
                    I would somehow understand if you were talking about the shock wave of a leading charge reflected from the armor ...

                    Uh ... Do you even know that there is a difference between the directed charge and the cumulative charge, or put an equal sign between them?

                    Quote: aiw
                    Oh yes, the count of time - nothing prevents you from shooting forward a leading charge when approaching a target.

                    It remains to figure out how to maintain accuracy.
                  2. aiw
                    aiw 22 March 2016 12: 29
                    0
                    > At this time, the flying penetrator freezes?

                    What is preventing it from undermining the leading charge a little in advance, at this very time? Do you even know what requirements, for example, were imposed on synchronizing fuses of implosive nuclear weapons?

                    > Eh ... do you even know that there is a difference between a directional charge and a shaped charge, or put an equal sign between them?

                    I do not set. And you? Or do you think the cumulative charge does not have a high-explosive effect (in front of the armor)? Or does his funnate effect not increase when reflected from armor?

                    > It remains to figure out how to maintain accuracy.

                    Amer missile defense missiles manage to get directly into the warhead - where accuracy is needed much more. This is quite decisive, would be a necessity.


                    By the way, there was an article about Israeli tandem shells with the main high-explosive part. Not against tanks but against buildings. The leader made a pretty hole in the concrete, where the main charge calmly flew. Google is already too lazy.
                  3. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 53
                    -1
                    Quote: aiw
                    What is preventing it from undermining the leading charge a little in advance, at this very time?

                    That the precharge and the main charge are placed in a single housing.


                    Quote: aiw
                    I do not set. And you? Or do you think the cumulative charge does not have a high-explosive effect (in front of the armor)? Or does his funnate effect not increase when reflected from armor?

                    In my opinion, you just bet. Do not forget that only part of the energy of the cumulative charge goes to the formation of the cumulative jet. And against the background of the influence of its detonation on the penetrator following it, one can ignore the energy of the shock wave reflected from the armor.


                    Quote: aiw
                    Amer missile defense missiles manage to get directly into the warhead - where accuracy is needed much more.

                    That is, two control systems? One for the rocket itself, the second to ensure penetrator penetrates into the hole from the shot precharge?
                  4. aiw
                    aiw 22 March 2016 13: 02
                    +2
                    > The fact that the precharge and the main charge are located in a single housing.

                    So what? While the detonator fails to detonate (that is, the leader’s corps begins to collapse), the missile will just fly to the side.

                    > the energy of the shock wave reflected from the armor can be ignored.

                    You contradict yourself. If only a small part of the energy is spent on the creation of the CS, then the rest goes into the shock wave, how can it be neglected? Kaptsov denies the principle of reciprocity. Do you deny the law of conservation of energy? belay

                    > That is, two control systems? One for the rocket itself, the second to ensure that the penetrator hits the hole from the precharge being fired?

                    It can be one system that controls the prenatrator and determines where the leader went. You yourself said that 10 meters means that the leader should fly very close.

                    Modern technology can solve problems requiring much greater accuracy, both in time and in coordinate.
              2. RuslanD36
                RuslanD36 April 28 2016 18: 22
                0
                At this time, the flying penetrator freezes?


                What for? 1km / s also flies
                Does the jet not use rocket speed? 2km / s (even) + 1km / s is already 3 km / s

                When the jet reaches the armor the main charge will go only a third of the way without taking into account the decrease in speed from undermining?

                Further to this, you argued about the time of the blast. The RVV laser is needed so that the plane does not dodge and the contact detonator is not suitable there, for your conditional rocket, a rod such as shots is also suitable, because The armor will not dodge.

                Further, about the detonation of the main charge: have you heard about the tandem shots of the mRO or rshg?

                Sorry to intervene, just tired of reading your argument).

                Another thing is that personally I do not see the point in the radial cumulative cutter. 400 mm of armor is 40 cm, which the kekeke beat already in the Second World War. And the penetrator could be not just steel, but from rare metals such as tungsten
          3. Alex_59
            22 March 2016 13: 38
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            More. Fuse response speeds, detonation and cumulative jet formation rates, penetration rates

            Interesting idea. And what prevents to undermine the cumulative precharge at a distance from the target, ensuring the penetration of armor by the time of the approach of a high explosive warhead?
            There is such a mine - TM-83. Her shock core flies on 50 meters and pierces 100 mm of armor. The aerodynamic drag of the shock core is very small, therefore its speed is plus with the speed of the rocket Vу + Vр = V. If the rate of penetration of armor by the cumulative jet Vk is less than Vу and Vр, then theoretically it is possible to select such a response time of the cumulative charge that Vk + V will result in such a lead that the armor will have time to be destroyed by the time the high-explosive charge approaches it.
            This, of course, is again a theory. smile
    2. alstr
      alstr 28 March 2016 13: 55
      0
      I will add that in the case of a dive, no special armor-piercing is needed. Because water will do its dirty deed (just remember the ways to detonate modern torpedoes).
      If you make the rockets dive under the ship, then without any armor-piercing there is a big chance that the ship will simply break. And if it doesn’t break, then closing a hole in the bottom is still a mess.
  • Tarikxnumx
    Tarikxnumx 23 March 2016 00: 57
    +1
    what are you saying ... What about tandem cumulative-thermobaric shots for modern grenade launchers? Or the same RMG?
  • aiw
    aiw 22 March 2016 09: 20
    0
    Oleg, before writing this, take the trouble to get acquainted with at least the basics of the mechanics of a deformable solid ...

    The design proposed by Alexei is far from perfect (let's say the efficiency will drop sharply when approaching is not normal). But to bring the concrete-bunker warhead warhead in the kachetsvet of the counterargument is generally ... You would have brought a sewing needle - that one without explosives at all.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 22 March 2016 10: 42
      +3
      Oleg really reads other people's articles diagonally. But, the desire to contradict is so great that the head does not keep up with him.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 23 March 2016 18: 56
        +1
        Guys, tie, I can't gobble up so much popcorn wassat
  • Operator
    Operator 22 March 2016 09: 12
    +2
    On the anti-ship missiles "Basalt" / "Vulcan", an armor-piercing warhead is installed in the form of a shock core with a copper lining. With a diameter of 800 mm, the impact core has a penetration rate of 400 mm (1/2 of the diameter).

    The diameter of the hole in the armor is also 400 mm. The steel "plug" knocked out of the hole is fragmented and, together with the fragments of the copper lining of the impact nucleus, forms a sheaf of metal fragments diverging in the range of 60 degrees, moving at a speed of 2 to 3 km / s.

    Internal bulkheads and Kevlar splinter mats are not protection against such high-speed damaging elements within a radius of several tens of meters of expansion.

    In the case of the use of tantalum lining of the shock core, the armor penetration of the warhead increases to the diameter of the core - i.e. up to 800 mm. For anti-ship missiles "Caliber" this figure is 500 mm.
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 09: 26
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      On the anti-ship missiles "Basalt" / "Vulcan", an armor-piercing warhead is installed in the form of a shock core with a copper lining. With a diameter of 800 mm, the impact core has a penetration rate of 400 mm (1/2 of the diameter).

      The diameter of the hole in the armor is also 400 mm. The steel "plug" knocked out of the hole is fragmented and, together with the fragments of the copper lining of the impact nucleus, forms a sheaf of metal fragments diverging in the range of 60 degrees, moving at a speed of 2 to 3 km / s.

      Internal bulkheads and Kevlar splinter mats are not protection against such high-speed damaging elements within a radius of several tens of meters of expansion.

      In the case of the use of tantalum lining of the shock core, the armor penetration of the warhead increases to the diameter of the core - i.e. up to 800 mm. For anti-ship missiles "Caliber" this figure is 500 mm.

      Where infa interesting?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 22 March 2016 09: 59
        -10%
        Quote: Alex_59
        Where infa interesting?

        Yes from the same place where your centimeter over-the-horizon radar "Monolith"
        1. Alex_59
          22 March 2016 10: 03
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Yes from the same place where your centimeter over-the-horizon radar "Monolith"

          The gopher does not exist (C). laughing
          Does the tropospheric radio relay also not exist?
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 22 March 2016 11: 15
            -4
            Quote: Alex_59
            Does the tropospheric radio relay also not exist?

            it was about the ship overseas centimeter range radar
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 22 March 2016 11: 06
          +3
          Nevertheless "Monolith" exists and it really is over the horizon.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Operator
        Operator 22 March 2016 12: 02
        -1
        You already answered this question yourself
        http://saperka.ru/kumulyativnyj-zaryad-kz-4
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 22 March 2016 09: 29
    -7
    Hmm ... unscientific fiction ... the author suffered ... Before, I still hoped that the site was more serious.
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 09: 32
      +6
      Quote: Dimon19661
      Hmm ... unscientific fiction ... the author suffered ... Before, I still hoped that the site was more serious.

      Duck are you all grumbling? Take it, show me the class. Write seriously. Is anyone against it? I personally - for.
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 22 March 2016 11: 25
        -7
        And why should I actually write anything ??? And by the way, I don’t grumble, but express the opinion of the person who gave the fleet for more than 20 years. If I see elements of fiction in your writings, I’m saying this. Your problem is that you absolutely don’t you understand how destruction systems work. You never took part in the shooting, and you never really went out to sea.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 22 March 2016 11: 42
          +5
          And because it would be quite nice to justify our opinion, and at the same time enlighten us, the orphans and the wretched, sharing our knowledge. And this is me quite seriously.
        2. Alex_59
          22 March 2016 12: 35
          +5
          Quote: Dimon19661
          You have never taken part in the shooting, and you never really went out to sea.
          He went to sea as a passenger of a civilian ship, and was only on excursions on warships. I do not hide it. However, the lack of practical experience does not prevent me from trying to understand how everything works in the Navy. Sergei Palych Korolev also did not fly into space, but he knew perfectly how to fly there. I don’t match him, so that's how it turns out ...

          Quote: Dimon19661
          And by the way, I do not grumble, but express the opinion of a man who has given the fleet more than 20 years.

          Duck here and share their experience. I would read it with pleasure. Maybe you served with my uncle and sister's husband? Black Sea Fleet, uncle - MRA, Oktyabrsky, then VRZ in the Omega Bay. The sister's husband is a Mirage MRK, a midshipman.
          Quote: Dimon19661
          Your problem is that you absolutely do not understand how damage systems work.

          Yes, I do not understand, but try to understand. You do not want to explain. I will continue to remain ignoramus.
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 22 March 2016 13: 11
          +2
          Quote: Dimon19661
          I see fiction elements in your writings and I’m saying this. Your problem is that you absolutely don’t understand how defeat systems work.

          What exactly are the elements of science fiction?

          Quote: Dimon19661
          You never took part in the shooting

          I took part in the shooting and was not naked "how does the defeat system work" ... so what?

          Quote: Dimon19661
          vryatlya ever went to sea.

          laughing Mom urinate on my chest, otherwise I can’t live without the sea ???
  • unknown
    unknown 22 March 2016 09: 37
    +2
    About the symbol of the weakness of the Soviet RCC.

    Battleship South Dakota. According to many experts, it is one of the best projects of the WWII battleship.

    In the night battle on November 14-15, 1942, the Guadal Canal received 27 hits with shells from 5 to 14 inches. Most in add-ons. Many shells did not explode, but the battleship lost almost all the radars and directors. Internal communication systems are out of order. The battleship lost its combat effectiveness and left the battlefield.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 22 March 2016 10: 26
      -3
      Quote: ignoto
      The battleship lost its combat effectiveness and left the battlefield.

      Firstly, he didn’t leave, but lived to see the end of the battle

      Secondly, the losses among the crew of South Dakota amounted to 39 killed, 59 wounded (out of 2500 people on board)

      Thirdly, the battleship returned to the base on its own. Repair took 2,5 of the month

      Fourth, what would be the consequences of getting at least three 800-kg shells in a modern cruiser (purely out of curiosity - which part of the crew would survive)
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 22 March 2016 16: 37
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Firstly, he didn’t leave, but lived to see the end of the battle

        survived, but did not leave? or left? or just find fault with the words, moreover, clumsily?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Secondly, the losses among the crew of South Dakota amounted to 39 killed, 59 wounded (out of 2500 people on board)

        lovely. very happy for them. almost 2500 viewers.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Thirdly, the battleship returned to the base on its own. Repair took 2,5 of the month

        the ship lost combat effectiveness for 2,5 months. battleship. 2,5 months! on the ocean tvd. By the way, it’s interesting, if he got to the base on his own, it’s quite logical that he began to flee from the battlefield as soon as he lost combat effectiveness.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Fourth, what would be the consequences of getting at least three 800-kg shells into a modern cruiser (purely out of curiosity - which part of the crew would survive)

        purely out of curiosity - what can send three 800 kg of shells to a modern cruiser.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Forest
    Forest 22 March 2016 09: 42
    +3
    I thank the author for a detailed explanation on the topic! hi True, this will not convince the main ideologist of armor)
  • Bakht
    Bakht 22 March 2016 10: 13
    +5
    A physicist was hospitalized after a car accident.
    Lies and raves:
    - Good thing in half. Good thing in half. Good thing in half.
    - What in half? - the doctor asks.
    - It’s good that the kinetic energy of Em-Ve-Square is HALF !!!


    I remember that in this joke they explained to me why with hypersonic missiles it makes no sense to book a ship. As indicated in the article, some compartments need to be booked, but the concept of World War II armor has long died. And the article indicates how many armored ships are now available.

    The tendency to build ships expensive and large leads to unexpected results. In World War I, the High Sea Fleet stood at the bases (several exits do not count). Battleships of the Baltic Fleet were defended in the Marquise puddle. In World War II, Yamamoto did not dare to send a dozen battleships into battle against two battered aircraft carriers. The Khashir fleet stood idle while the cruisers and destroyers were bleeding in various express trains. In the Black Sea, the command did not dare to use the ParKomunna, even to save the Crimean Front (for the sake of fairness, it should be noted that according to some reports, the battleship was not operational - gun barrels were shot). Fleet in being born

    What can contrast Iowa with a dozen small missile ships that launched fifty Caliber? Or a hundred. It will not work from the first salvo, they will reload and release the second hundred ...

    PS After a volley of calibers from the Caspian Sea, the Americans removed the aircraft carrier from the Arabian Sea. No one knows - he returned there or not?
  • common man
    common man 22 March 2016 10: 41
    +1
    This is all great. "There is no reception against scrap." But I still did not see the calculations on the penetration rate of Harpoon missiles, as the most massive in the American fleet. And so the reasoning comes down to the type "why would a T-34 tank have anti-cannon armor at all, if the 807 mm" fool "from Dora even without explosives would flatten the tank". We have fewer Granites than the states have Arleigh Berkov. And they do not have them at all, and are not expected.
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 19: 04
      +1
      Quote: man in the street
      But I still did not see calculations on penetration by Harpoon missiles, as the most massive in the Amer fleet.

      In the first part it is written why the penetration of Harpoon is of little interest to anyone. First of all, in the USA itself.
      Quote: man in the street
      And so the reasoning comes down to the type "why would a T-34 tank have anti-cannon armor at all, if the 807 mm" fool "from Dora even without explosives would flatten the tank".

      The reasoning is that the weapon system of the 20 000 T-34 is more effective than the system of the 1000 Tigers. By most Berlin is more efficient. Grandfathers proved.
      And with regard to the fleet, the arguments come down to the fact that a fleet of 90 not very armored destroyers is more effective than a fleet of 20-30 hypothetical armored monsters.
      Because systems, armies, and states are at war, and not as one-on-one in boxing.
      Quote: man in the street
      We have fewer granites than Arly Burkov among the states.

      Nobody is going to crush granite Burke. Granites Nimitsy will crumble.
      Quote: man in the street
      And they do not have them at all, and is not expected.

      Do they need it?
  • Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 22 March 2016 10: 44
    0
    About the photo from 055 at the beginning of the article) but no Varyag although I have the same since 2003
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 22 March 2016 11: 03
    0
    Everything seems to be reasonable and logical, as in the opinion of lay people. However, professionals made their choice a long time ago. Maybe if they create something like Kevlar, but cheaper, they will install it more widely than the same Kevlar now.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 22 March 2016 11: 23
    0
    Everyone is stubbornly considering striking the ship from the side.
    Hitting the side or sides of add-ons.

    But the latest missiles attack vertically from top to bottom.
    And in any rocket there is a GOS with an IR video camera.
    Photos of the main types of ships are loaded into her computer
    enemy and for each type of vulnerability marked for the strike.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 22 March 2016 11: 43
      +2
      The latest missiles attack in different ways. Depending on the program.
    2. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 12: 11
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Everyone is stubbornly considering striking the ship from the side.
      Hitting the side or sides of add-ons.

      But the latest missiles attack vertically from top to bottom.

      If I considered attacks of RCC from a hill, there would be nothing to write at all. This is such a trump card, which I deliberately do not spread. smile
      1. aiw
        aiw 22 March 2016 12: 13
        0
        And she can also dive ...
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 22 March 2016 12: 28
        0
        I don't think there is an opportunity to attack "from a hill" on hypersound.

        Yes, and on less high-speed "slide" leads to a significant increase in the time spent by anti-ship missiles in the zone of effective fire of the ship's "near" air defense systems, and, consequently, an increase in the probability of hitting anti-ship missiles.
        1. Alex_59
          22 March 2016 19: 06
          0
          Quote: Spade
          I don't think there is an opportunity to attack "from a hill" on hypersound.

          And who said about hypersound? Uranus, Caliber, Harpoon, Tomahawk - they are not hypersonic, but they seem to know how to make a slide.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 23 March 2016 00: 11
            0
            As well as anti-ship options X-15, X-31, X-58.
      3. Operator
        Operator 22 March 2016 12: 43
        +4
        After the battleship "Wisconsin" was written off to the museum, the "volcanologists" rockets beat their hoofs and look forward to the launch of the newest battleship "Admiral of the Fleet Oleg Kaptsov" bully
        1. Kenneth
          Kenneth 22 March 2016 13: 18
          +5
          Solid cast from armor steel.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  • RPG_
    RPG_ 22 March 2016 12: 53
    0
    Break through 400 mm. landmine? IMHO do not compare 20 mm of aluminum with armored steel. And for such statements at least an approximate calculation is needed.
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 13: 44
      +3
      Quote: RPG_
      IMHO do not compare 20 mm aluminum with armor steel.
      BMP-2 - steel. Luminium is BMD. Those from falling RPGs turn into a molten puddle. Sometimes.
      Quote: RPG_
      And for such statements at least an approximate calculation is needed.

      There are not enough sources of information for amateur calculations. Therefore, in a square-nested manner. smile
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 22 March 2016 17: 09
        -1
        Alex, the duel with Kaptsov is interesting, but here you framed ...
        1. Alex_59
          22 March 2016 19: 08
          0
          Quote: Andrey77
          Alex, the duel with Kaptsov is interesting, but here you framed ...

          Yes, I do not need any duel. It was he himself who ran in and let's argue. I wrote for the people. And so, of course, calculations are necessary. Maybe someone will calculate it will be better than mine.
          1. Andrey77
            Andrey77 26 March 2016 00: 48
            0
            Yes, I believe! He himself came, not my fault (s) :)
  • Kenneth
    Kenneth 22 March 2016 13: 18
    0
    Armor is a useless load that you need to carry with you and which will help you drown faster. The cumulative ammunition made the armor on the ships redundant. Although it is certainly interesting to imagine a ship hung with dynamic protection. In general, the farther the more modern ship looks like a warehouse of missiles that need to be released faster. Soon, it seems that even the radar systems will be put on one flagship, and the rest of the ships will be stupidly container ships with maximum filling. And this is true.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2016 17: 07
      0
      Yes. They will follow the path of ground complexes. Two barges with missiles + frigate with electronics.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 23 March 2016 00: 15
        0
        The Americans have already tried to do this (ship-arsenal) and abandoned this venture.
  • podgornovea
    podgornovea 22 March 2016 13: 18
    +1
    As soon as they showed the "unprofitability" and senselessness of the exorbitant armoring of the ships, the armoredists got hooked and made a mess about the over-the-horizon radars. smile

    (Hint: As an argument, we can also say that thin bodies resonate strongly in the field of infrasound and because of which whales are washed ashore smile
    Therefore, no reservation is impossible! Give environmentally friendly armadillos! smile)

    The Chinese will soon "finish" their ballistic anti-ship missile and will put a FAT POINT in this holivar from the top on the hypersound!
    (Someone will be sorry for the time spent request)
  • merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 22 March 2016 13: 23
    -1
    The most optimal variant of armored penetration for anti-ship missiles is a cumulative impact nucleus made from an alloy of depleted uranium or tantalum with tungsten and a subcaliber warhead with a strong explosive incendiary effect or with radial cumulative knives with active penetration into the hole with a small charge. And in general, when a big fight starts, everything will be played, I mean that rockets such as Vulcan, Granite and Mosquito need to equip part of the missiles with a nuclear warhead with a capacity of one kiloton to guarantee the destruction of any naval target in the event of a large-scale war, since the damn time of a strike and a second chance are already damn important here not to be. And so that they would not think of me as a barbarian with sadistic inclinations, I thought about the real hostilities between two, at least, powers with modern weapons.
    1. Operator
      Operator 22 March 2016 14: 24
      -1
      The metal lining of the cumulative charges is made of pure copper or tantalum - materials with high ductility.

      Alloys of uranium with titanium or tungsten with nickel have high elasticity and are therefore used in BPS penetrators.
    2. abc_alex
      abc_alex 22 March 2016 22: 54
      +1
      Even in Soviet times, special. The warheads of the Granite complex or X-22 missiles were planned not to destroy ships, but to suppress radar reconnaissance and suppress AUG with an EM pulse.
  • aiw
    aiw 22 March 2016 13: 47
    +11
    In general, Alexei, all your garbage these calculations, I figured ...

    Take the supertanker https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_Nevis. This is 500 thousand tons of payload. The deck area is 30 sq. M, the perimeter of the side is 000 m, with a freeboard height of 1000 m in full load it is 5 sq m.

    We start booking. If the thickness of the armor on board is a meter, it will be only 40 thousand tons, on the deck a meter is 240 thousand tons. Well, the upper weight, back and forth ... we’ll put half a meter armor on the deck (this is 120 thousand tons), an armored belt 2 meters thick and 5 meters under water (160 thousand tons) across the board. We have left 500-240-120 = 140 thousand tons ;-(

    Not much. Well, then, we raise the power of the power plant, equip hangars for aviation, runways, put S-400 complexes, shell on deck, there are 50 pieces of tanks as the main caliber, iskander, there poplars ... let’s ride, there’s enough space. Fill the tanks with non-combustible foam. Ballast again.

    And in proud silence we sail on this joke to the shores of the adversary. When he runs out of all anti-ship missiles (and get rid of the 2m armor than you can get it), there is a chance that they just go nuts and give up. If not, Oleg Kaptsov (who will be the captain of the EU) will drive another Arly Burke into the corner, and tastefully shoot him from the tank.

    fellow
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 22 March 2016 14: 16
      0
      Edred batters ... Yes, from such a leviathan, all the vorogi go crazy and give up. Although ... If it is a miracle with poplars, then they simply crash with a fusion. Well Schaub was not good.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 22 March 2016 17: 23
        +1
        For every armored ass there is a blacksmith - aviation.
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2016 17: 20
      0
      We attack from above, like Yamato. Close not poking around. There is time. The 26th departure of the strike unit will sink =)
      1. aiw
        aiw 22 March 2016 17: 51
        0
        So she has the whole deck in C400, they are there like cockroaches scurrying around + their own air group. 26th link kamikaze afraid to refuse to fly ;-)
      2. aiw
        aiw 22 March 2016 17: 54
        0
        And by the way, yes, well, some sort of RCC broke through ... then what? Than they will penetrate 500mm armor? And why - underneath is an oil tank filled with inert foam for several thousand cubic meters ...
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 22 March 2016 18: 20
          +1
          Quote: aiw
          And by the way, yes, well, some sort of RCC broke through ... then what?

          like what? give up.
          this is a very tricky calculation. when the number of prisoners and deserters rolls over, this leviathan will simply drown from overload. HIITY PLAN!
    3. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 22 March 2016 18: 52
      0
      Quote: aiw
      And in proud silence we sail on this joke to the shores of the adversary.

      laughing
      Yeah, at one time they were so smart - they wanted to build an aircraft carrier from the ice with sawdust wassat
      Have you ever wondered how much the item you described will cost7 How much metal is needed for it? Yes, ground generals with air marshals will put you on a stake for senseless waste of resources together with your "supertanker" project laughing Yes, and no one will be spent on such a miracle with conventional weapons and while it is being built, then a torpedo with a special warhead will be ready for it wink
  • Kvazar
    Kvazar 22 March 2016 15: 53
    -1
    The author’s logic seems to be correct. True, nobody has yet managed to break through the 400mm EXPLOSION side (Tirpitz was drowned ...). Granite lives stupidly 12 meters and that's it.

    Again, everyone came up against a monolith. People wake up you live in the 21st century. It has long been invented things like composite armor, reflective sheets, etc. Yes, and DZ did not come up with fools.

    There is still such a moment. That the author "accidentally" forgot that the ship is not a tank. The problem is to sink it. This is a small place in the tank and a dense line-up that one penetration = incapacitation.

    I will give a simple example. Tirpitz drowned 5! ton bombs (2,35 tons! BB).
    "One of the bombs exploded on the shore, and the other 3 meters from the stem. The battleship was hit by 3 Tallboy bombs: one bounced off the tower armor, but the other two pierced the armor and made a 60-meter hole in its port side; the explosion of an artillery cellar tore off the tower "C" (Caesar). As a result, a few minutes after the attack, "Tirpitz" rolled over and sank, taking with it to the bottom 1000 people from a team of 1700. "

    The only problem is to create a monster’s anti-ship missile in warhead even in a ton; your rocket should weigh 5-8 tons; That is, come to the missile monsters of the PKR of the USSR. Because they had battleships and aircraft carriers in their opponents (they had 150mm armor).
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 22 March 2016 17: 05
      +1
      True, no one has yet managed to break through the 400mm EXPLOSION side (Tirpitz was drowned ...)
      -
      And who told you that the rocket will hit the side, and not dive from above?
      ===

      This is not enough space in the tank and a tight line-up is that one breakout = incapacitation.
      -
      Read about the BOD "Brave", think a lot. Getting into the cellar of the air defense missile system = incapacitation. And if in the cellar of universal rockets?
      1. Kvazar
        Kvazar 22 March 2016 18: 41
        -1
        On super sound? Only subsonic rackets dive. At 2-3 max it is oh what a problem.
        There in RCC there is a problem with guidance and the main thing is to get there.

        Then reduce the speed will be a hill for you true armor piercing will drop sharply.

        The armor is needed so that in your inside the ship it would burst after the penetration of 6-7% of explosives.
        One thing hit you with a rocket with warhead in a 500kg ship; 300kg of explosives burst into the inside. Or when the same thing happened (the armor was pierced) and 30kg of explosives was delivered (6% of the mass).
        The difference in the gap of 30 and 300 kg of explosives do you need to explain?
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 22 March 2016 20: 56
          0
          It is necessary. 30 kg in the forepeak and 30 kg in the air defense cellar - a big difference.
          1. Kvazar
            Kvazar 22 March 2016 22: 55
            0
            The difference is pretty big. With an explosion of 300kg, a boat in the inside = a star on a small ship (5-10ct, and you won’t envy a big one). If you rushed 30kg. Even if you’re very unlucky and knocked out ALL! only a small part of the ship will be damaged = go home for repairs (or continue the battle). Just do not demolish the team for survivability.

            If the boat is large (from 50 to 140ct) an explosion of such a count. VV is not laughter for chickens. Yes, they can hit very well. But as practice shows, it is simply not possible to drown a large boat with this.
            Read how many hits survived the battleship Yamato and how many torpedoes. And there it was bombed and there were more explosives. And how many HOURS the attack lasted. And how many papadanii were. At the same time, the ship retained its course and combat readiness (partially) collapsed only when the BC pulled. You can give an example of the second beating of the pack on one bismarck. It kept the course and was drowned by its crew. Here Bismarck was a striking example of large ships. And the shells were just 30-50kg BB 25kg 406mm shells ...

            For small ships, only the anti-fragmentation protection plays a role (the truth is that it is no longer steel, but al. And Kevlar), all large ships have reservations. The same Orlan was supposed to carry a 200mm armored belt, but it was overloaded in the trash and the armor belt was removed, leaving only local armor up to 80mm. Plus Kuzya has an armored belt + local booking. Any Nimets generally carry 150mm.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 23 March 2016 04: 22
              0
              Do you want both the squirrel and the elephant to be beaten out of small things? In one shot?
              Does a ship in 4000t and 50-70 000t have a difference?
              1. Andrey77
                Andrey77 23 March 2016 10: 26
                0
                If you shoot an elephant and a squirrel in the opera - there is, if you shoot in the eye - practically none.
            2. Andrey77
              Andrey77 23 March 2016 10: 24
              0
              An elephant can be killed from small things - successfully falling into his eye. Yes, the elephant will not bend right away - but it will bend. You stubbornly ignore the site of the hit. Once again - 30 kg you rushed in the ammunition cellar. Immediately add everything that is in the cellar - and this is no longer 30 and not 300.
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 23 March 2016 00: 46
          0
          You are mistaken, I repeat - anti-ship options X-15, X-31, X-58. Look at their performance characteristics. Very supersonic.
    2. Operator
      Operator 22 March 2016 18: 15
      -1
      If we recall that we live in the 21st century, then there is such a thing as the Iskander-M ballistic missile with a launch weight that is half the weight of the Vulcan anti-ship missile system, the same warhead weight and a flight speed of 2100 m / s (7 M ).

      The kinetic energy of the Iskander-M warhead is twice the kinetic energy of a 406-mm artillery shell with a corresponding increase in armor penetration.

      Iskander-M attacks in the upper projection of the ship. The warhead actively maneuvers while approaching the target, which makes it impossible to intercept it by shipborne air defense / missile defense systems.

      So armored flags flag in the hands of the circular buildup of side, deck and superstructure armor to a thickness of 800 mm am
      1. Alex_59
        22 March 2016 19: 17
        0
        Quote: Operator
        Iskander-M attacks in the upper projection of the ship. The warhead is actively maneuvering while approaching the target

        What maneuvers? This question worries me very much. I was with OTB "Oka" from which "Iskander" was glued with a sign, but there is a usual ballistic missile, there are no impulse engines for maneuvering outside the atmosphere, and when entering the atmosphere you cannot maneuver - 60-90 seconds from a height of 50 km to the ground. I think this is journalistic speculation.
        1. aiw
          aiw 22 March 2016 19: 26
          0
          At a speed of 3M, we need very small steering surfaces to maneuver.

          What is really there - HZ ... I dare to assume that conditionally half of the information on armaments from all sides is disinfect ;-)
        2. Operator
          Operator 22 March 2016 19: 35
          -1
          "System of gas rudders in rarefied layers of the atmosphere and deflected rudders on the final section of the trajectory", - O. Kaptsov (C).

          Pershing II warhead flight profile - for more details see http://topwar.ru/?newsid=68512
          1. Alex_59
            22 March 2016 20: 35
            0
            Quote: Operator
            "System of gas rudders in rarefied layers of the atmosphere and deflected rudders on the final section of the trajectory", - O. Kaptsov (C).

            Found someone to quote. I don’t know, that’s all doubtful. Gas rudders are impulse correction engines, like those of a satellite. They cannot create a big overload, even if they are. The meaning of such a maneuver? Only if improved accuracy, correction of errors of the active section. But I reviewed all the pictures of Iskander - I do not see any traces of correction engines on them. Where are their nozzles? The thrust vector must pass through the center of mass of the body being corrected (we don’t need to rotate around its axis) - where is there anything remotely resembling nozzles in the center of mass? And where is the center of mass of a rocket with an inseparable warhead after fuel burnup? If the fuel burned out - then one center of mass, and if not everything burned out - in another place the center of mass.
            Deviated steering wheels on the final part of the trajectory - well, let's say, duck is also only in the atmosphere. There is already nothing special to correct. Also only if correcting guidance errors. I doubt that during an atmospheric fall, it can create such an overload with its wheels that it will dodge the missiles.
            1. aiw
              aiw 22 March 2016 20: 57
              0
              Wiki claims that it waves aerodynamic rudders and dense layers gives 20-30g. There are fewer leaks, but to confuse the kinetic interceptor a lot is not necessary.
            2. Operator
              Operator 22 March 2016 21: 35
              -1
              If you will, I will voice my IMHO on the Iskander-M warhead:

              1. The warhead is not equipped with gas rudders; during the flight phase it is not controlled in the airless space. The firing range and the apogee of the trajectory are set by the warhead pitch at the time of separation of the last stage of the rocket with a controlled thrust vector.

              2. The warhead is covered with radar absorbing material operating during the flight phase in airless space. Together with the conical shape and small size of the warhead, this allows you to reduce the EPR to a minimum value of the order of 0,00001 sq.m

              3. The warhead maneuvering is carried out after entering the atmosphere using a deflectable aerodynamic skirt located along the perimeter of the warhead end. The skirt and body connector in the photographs is hidden under a radar absorbing coating that burns after entering the atmosphere.

              4. Open sources of information claim overload from 10 to 20 g, achieved by maneuvering the warhead. Which is enough to evade missile defense.

              5. In the short term, it will be possible to use warhead coatings from metamaterials that mask the object in the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves in the location range - from ultraviolet to millimeter-wave radiation.
              1. Operator
                Operator 22 March 2016 22: 53
                -1
                New version of metamaterial

                http://vsluh.net/show-5934-izobreteno-novoe-sredstvo-maskirovki-sekretnyh-obekto
                v.html
                1. Kvazar
                  Kvazar 22 March 2016 23: 51
                  0
                  Already passed and wondered. Even modern armor already has a prohibitive price tag. And this is generally zvizdets ...
              2. Alex_59
                23 March 2016 06: 44
                0
                Quote: Operator
                The firing range and the apogee of the trajectory are set by the warhead pitch at the time of separation of the last stage of the rocket with a controlled thrust vector.

                Duck there like a head is not detachable? Not? what

                http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-816.html
                1. Operator
                  Operator 23 March 2016 09: 29
                  -1
                  IMHO - there are various versions, including detachable.
            3. spravochnik
              spravochnik 23 March 2016 00: 37
              0
              You are wrong, gas rudders are not motors, but small control surfaces in the main engine nozzle. Look there. They have long been used in ballistic missiles and air-to-air missiles.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 23 March 2016 04: 27
                0
                the main engine runs for 20-30 seconds, control of gas rudders is possible only on takeoff. Aerodynamic when falling on target
              2. Alex_59
                23 March 2016 06: 47
                0
                Quote: spravochnik
                You are wrong, gas rudders are not motors, but small control surfaces in the main engine nozzle. Look there. They have long been used in ballistic missiles and air-to-air missiles.

                Oh, surely! Something I forgot already. Graphite they are. There is trouble again - they work while the engine pulls. Spent remote control - no gas rudders. And the remote control works out at the acceleration section in the atmosphere, at the peak no gas rudders are working, the engine is no longer there.
      2. Kvazar
        Kvazar 22 March 2016 23: 10
        0
        There are such bad things like:
        1. Electronic warfare (if we are talking about ships of the first rank and its protection), then the launch is carried out in a blind way, "somewhere there," and the first missiles necessarily carry SBS or EMs to suppress the electronic warfare.
        2. For ground-based systems, there is no task of hitting a target that travels at a speed of 50km per hour (30 knots). Even if you have a flight time of 12 minutes (500 km in 2 swoops for heavy anti-ship missiles that we have only). During this time, the target shifts by 10,000 meters. It’s even more difficult to screw an active head onto it; other problems are already there (heat needs to be removed, but an active head needs a transparent mat. (Radar or Optics or Light)).
        3. A missile reaching even about 2M (760-800 m / approximately) can only maneuver very narrow maneuvers (very large overloads). And she cannot make a slide, for the reason that with a "slide" you need to extinguish the speed at the peak, survive the exorbitant overloads and further accelerate. Either your speed will drop (armor-piercing) or your speed will drop (flat trajectory of the hill), but the impact will actually ricochet at the worst angle to the deck.
        4. All anti-ship missiles are aimed at the center of the ship; in general, anti-ship missiles get into the ship yet that hemorrhoid.
  • Andrey77
    Andrey77 22 March 2016 16: 54
    +1
    Let's try to make the appropriate calculations for modern PKR. As a "projectile" take the warhead, since the rest of the rocket design does not participate in the penetration of the target.
    ---
    Even as involved! Estimate the mass of taxiway + residual fuel. And it all flies at the speed of a rocket. The fact that one inert warhead can sink MPCs and cause damage to a larger target doesn’t bother you?
    1. Alex_59
      22 March 2016 19: 13
      +1
      Quote: Andrey77
      The fact that one inert warhead can sink MPCs and cause damage to a larger target doesn’t bother you?

      On that poor RTO, unburned P-15 fuel spilled. The inert warhead did not participate in this. That is why it burned down - because the design of the rocket as an aircraft is very fragile, it fell apart when it hit an unarmoured aluminum superstructure of the MRK, and even more so the armor fell apart - and it remains burning outside. But if the warhead is active and ensures penetration of the armor, then all the guts of the rocket will fly into the hole, after the warhead! And they will burn inside. Yum, yum, yum, kebab!
      1. Kvazar
        Kvazar 22 March 2016 23: 38
        +1
        For starters, it's SMALL! RK (500-700 tons) in which they planted a rocket! P-15 = 2,5 tons start, 500 kg warheads with a speed of 320ms. This is the same as if a 406mm shell had flown into it. The result would be the same.
        If anything, when testing the KS-1 Camera with a larger warhead. In the field tests they shot at the unfinished SECTION of battlecruisers of the Sevastopol project 82 (203mm of armor). So they shot with the BATTLE part. THE TEAM DID NOT REMOVE !. At the same time, they could not drown. Although there were damages to the bent set and armor which then suddenly transformed into a through penetration in the wild dimension 8 * 6 meters in memory.

        In general, to be honest, it’s personally interesting for me to read both authors.
        If they strained their brains and Google, they would have found such an interesting reading as the use of an unfinished aircraft carrier of the Third Reich of the USSR after the war in tests of combat weapons of influence on the aircraft carrier. And really, ALL QUESTIONS WOULD BE REMOVED. ONCE AND FOREVER. This Aircraft Carrier "Graf Zepelin" was booked for a reason, but just badly. The results "a bit" then depressed the command of the USSR Navy from there and the requirements of warheads from 500 to 1.000 kg. From there, the main requirement for all anti-ship missiles is to disable the battleships of the Second World War.

        And if they both would have strained their brains along with Google and books of 70-80 years. You would understand that the USA AUG and LUG (battleship strike group, of. The name of the 80's battleships which had long been time to landfill) were considered equal in stability. And in terms of danger in case of war, AUG and LUG were on an equal footing.
        1. Kars
          Kars 22 March 2016 23: 59
          +1
          Quote: Kvazar
          If anything, when testing the KS-1 Camera with a larger warhead. In the field tests they shot at the unfinished SECTION of battlecruisers of the Sevastopol project 82 (203mm of armor). So they shot with the BATTLE part. THE TEAM DID NOT REMOVE !. At the same time, they could not drown. Although there were damages to the bent set and armor which then suddenly transformed into a through penetration in the wild dimension 8 * 6 meters in memory.

          But can you read in more detail or a reference?
        2. Alex_59
          23 March 2016 06: 40
          0
          Quote: Kvazar
          If anything during the tests of the KS-1 Camera with a larger warhead
          Was the warhead cumulatively high explosive, like that of Basalts / Granites?
          Quote: Kvazar
          In the field tests they shot at the unfinished SECTION of battlecruisers of the Sevastopol project 82 (203mm of armor).

          Not linear and not Sevastopol. Heavy cruisers such as Stalingrad.

          Quote: Kvazar
          If they strained their brains and Google, they would have found such an interesting reading as the use of an unfinished aircraft carrier of the Third Reich of the USSR after the war in tests of combat weapons of influence on the aircraft carrier. And really, ALL QUESTIONS WOULD BE REMOVED. ONCE AND FOREVER. This Aircraft Carrier "Graf Zepelin" was booked for a reason, but just badly. The results "a bit" then depressed the command of the USSR Navy from there and the requirements of warheads from 500 to 1.000 kg. From there, the main requirement for all anti-ship missiles is to disable the battleships of the Second World War.

          I read about this in the pre-Google era. These tests are known to me. There were also tested aerial bombs with simulated different angles of incidence and simulated various fuse delays.
          1. Andrey77
            Andrey77 26 March 2016 18: 11
            0
            And what was the conclusion? I'm talking about throwing bombs ...
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 22 March 2016 21: 45
    0
    That’s why I love torpedoes that are especially vigorous nor any kind of vessel, even if it’s of any size, can’t withstand such a water hammer and break in half. It remains only one to combine a cruise missile with a torpedo of a barrage type.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 22 March 2016 23: 40
      0
      It was a long time since the time of the Second World War (the Germans first started).
      If anything, any strike formation of the KUG LUG AUG is accompanied by hunters for such clever people ....
  • Hog
    Hog 22 March 2016 22: 25
    0
    12 Shopping Mall Baltimore

    But what about Oregons and Des Moines ??
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 22 March 2016 22: 49
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Everyone is stubbornly considering striking the ship from the side.
    Hitting the side or sides of add-ons.

    But the latest missiles attack vertically from top to bottom.
    And in any rocket there is a GOS with an IR video camera.
    Photos of the main types of ships are loaded into her computer
    enemy and for each type of vulnerability marked for the strike.



    In the same way, everyone ignores the achievements of recent decades in the development of tank armor. I think that talking about armadillos of the 21st century in terms of booking technologies of 1 MV is simply strange. In the 75th year, a combined armor with corundum balls between two armor plates was developed for the T-64. The T-72B already had a multi-layer combined harrow. Multilayer armor is placed on Merkava.
    But the authors operate on both sides with a homogeneous steel sheet.

    Exactly the same are not taken into account design time for booking. Inclined sheets, bulwarks, cavities filled with inert gas.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 23 March 2016 00: 02
      0
      They are told this every time.
      And that the stability of plain steel armor is already 2,5 times higher than Krupovskaya WWII. And that a lot of new things came up. They omit it. That there are such things as combined armor that ALL SHIPS RESERVE !!! as they can. And that the same Nimets carries 150 mm of armor (automatically displays everything not heavy. RCCs in the world and abruptly introduces a haemorrhage according to the RF TCRs, the carriers of which crash immediately). They don’t care. And even that the Eagles carry armor. That Kuzya carry armor. That all frigates and destroyers carry armor, but the latter are not steel, but al, Kevlar and ceramics from fragments. So the means of destruction and the danger are different.

      Tank ideas develop faster (it's stupidly cheaper, and in real battles they don't check chutli every day in the world). The situation with the fleet is more complicated. There are no fights, it costs a lot of money. The life span of boats is "a bit" higher.
      PS The most funny thing. That the United States has the ability to withdraw from the status of a "museum" to a combat readiness state of its old battleships within six months or a year. Because actually they are actually in conservation. And the degree of threat of AUG and LUG is the same for us ... and fuck you LUG you will drown with modern light anti-ship missiles without SBS ...
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 23 March 2016 10: 10
        0
        That the United States has the ability to withdraw from the status of a "museum" in a combat readiness state of its old battleships within six months or a year.

        They can. The most important thing in the ship is the hull. So the Chinese can from a former Soviet helicopter carrier ...
  • Taoist
    Taoist 24 March 2016 23: 04
    0
    By the way, discussing "armor penetration" the respectable public overlooks the banal possibility of replacing the anti-ship missile warhead with an elementary rocket torpedo ... You don't even need to invent anything - it is already in the anti-submarine version ... Shall we arm the underwater board? bully
    1. Alex_59
      25 March 2016 07: 21
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, discussing "armor penetration" the respectable public overlooks the banal possibility of replacing the anti-ship missile warhead with an elementary rocket torpedo ... You don't even need to invent anything - it is already in the anti-submarine version ... Shall we arm the underwater board?

      Deliberately did not consider such options. This is a separate topic. PLRK "Blizzard" is able to shoot at surface ships.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 25 March 2016 10: 24
        +1
        In fact, it is never separate, this is just another argument against "passive protection" - it simply turns out to be ineffective with the capabilities and accuracy of modern URO.

        However, in fact, you can put forward quite a lot of such arguments, for example you did not consider cluster warheads that, when hitting a target from above, are able to turn any armored deck into a good "drushlag". The possibilities of "booster acceleration" for "penetrators" were not mentioned (and these are also well-known BRABs). Your opponents (if you can call them that) all the time lose sight of the fact that the booking on warships was intended primarily to provide a kind of "free maneuvering zone" under enemy fire. But the anti-ship missile system, in principle, has no such concept ... At any distance of the anti-ship missile's reach, it retains 100% its destructive power ... "tanking" will not work. In general, there is a lot that can be written about this ... But those who know how to think this already understand ... and the rest, unfortunately, "behind the armor" (ignorance and stubbornness) and this armor is really impenetrable.
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 26 March 2016 00: 36
          0
          There are a lot of "active" defense techniques against PRK. You can use electronic warfare, you can use anti-aircraft missiles, you can use a small-caliber ZA (if it’s just the edge). Better all together. And if you have a battleship hull, you are invulnerable. The remains of the downed anti-ship missiles will only scratch the side. The boatswain's crew will have to paint - an insoluble problem ...
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 26 March 2016 13: 34
            +1
            There is active protection against everything ... And the "battleship protection" can be pulled only on the battleship ... At the same time, there is no guarantee that this "armored shed" will not receive a torpedo (or an underwater warhead) under the armored belt and will not feed the fish ... It's just the economy. I will once again emphasize to you the simple fact that there are no technological obstacles to increasing the power and armor penetration of modern anti-ship missiles. And this is much faster and cheaper than building "battleships" - that's why they are not being built ...
            1. Andrey77
              Andrey77 26 March 2016 18: 21
              -1
              Torpedo? Yes, you live in the last century ... Torpedo weapons are used only to destroy submarines. Submarines, in turn, use torpedoes to destroy ... the enemy submarines.
              All! To get under the armor belt, the torpedo must somehow swim, at the speed of a cyclist ... (RCT "Shkval" - a weapon of suicides)
              ===
              there are no technological obstacles to increasing the power and armor penetration of modern anti-ship missiles

              Og. So I believed ... Tactical nuclear weapons are easier to put.
          2. Glad
            Glad 27 June 2016 01: 37
            0
            Quote: Andrey77
            There are a lot of "active" defense techniques against PRK. You can use electronic warfare, you can use anti-aircraft missiles, you can use a small-caliber ZA (if it’s just the edge). Better all together. And if you have a battleship hull, you are invulnerable. The remains of the downed anti-ship missiles will only scratch the side.

            "It's like, Mikhalych!" The British were terribly unlucky that the Argentines did not know all this and sank the English ships conventional unguided bombs
            This is if there are air defense systems on the English ships.
            This is provided that the Argentine “Skyhawks” acted at the limit of the radius of action, and therefore the British knew where the Argentines would come from and knew that they did not have time to “figure it hard” before the attack.
            This is when there are deck fighters over the English squadron that worked in ideal conditions.
            That is, the Argentines managed to approach the English ships point-blank, as during the Second World War, despite the fact that it was 1942, not 1982. And there were not hundreds or even dozens of those Argentine Skyhawks. There were few.

            And the Argentine "Exocets" did not know this, otherwise they would not do "mean things" such as capturing a target, provided that they were already taken away from the main target by the dipoles. They sank the Atlantic Conveyor like that. Half of the released "Exosets" hit the target, although there were not a dozen of them per ship, but 1 - 2 pieces for the whole squadron with every attack ...

            Verily, ignorance is a great power! smile

            You forgive generously my sarcasm, dear Andrey77. These capricious moods are simply surprising that RCC is an easy target. On the teachings, it may be so. But in real life, things can turn out not so rosy.
            No, I certainly understand that the Americans smile very convincingly at 32 teeth and say that "theirs" Aegis "takes everything" ... So after all, theirs "Patriot" also took everything, but the Iraqi SCUDs still fell on The Americans, however, later said that, they say, "nothing of the kind, we are all of that ..." However, upon closer examination it turned out that there was never "that", but very much even "that."

            PS By the way, at the exercises that took place shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, Sheffield did an excellent job of repelling a missile attack ...
      2. Glad
        Glad 27 June 2016 00: 31
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        PLRK "Blizzard" is able to shoot at surface ships.

        There, the torpedo, it seems, does not separate from the glider when firing at surface ships.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 26 March 2016 20: 27
    0
    I don’t know what century you live in ... But if you think that there is at least some technical problem that does not allow using a reactive torpedo as a warhead ... Well, build battleships ... bully
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 27 March 2016 14: 00
      -1
      Torpedo weapons went down in history and survived only on submarines. I don’t know what century you live in. The attempt to attach wings to the crocodile did not end in anything good.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 27 March 2016 14: 45
        0
        Damn it ... "but the men don't know" .... fool
        1. Andrey77
          Andrey77 30 March 2016 17: 10
          0
          Sign the picture.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 31 March 2016 18: 40
    0
    The author was mistaken when describing a "breach" in the BMP armor from a cumulative grenade hit. It will also occur when a high-explosive (especially a high-explosive armor-piercing) projectile breaks on it. The frontal armor of the BMP is incomparably weaker than the tank one. The effect is best implemented in a high-explosive armor-piercing projectile, which effectively broke through the frontal protection of homogeneous steel of the first post-war (WWII) tanks. It turned out to be ineffective against "puffs".
  • 3danimal
    3danimal April 1 2016 03: 58
    0
    But against Krupp's cemented NK armor, 100mm thick, such a warhead can be successfully applied. Plus versatility: the "soft" side will pierce and explode inside, on the "hard" side it will explode from the outside, breaking it at the point of impact and hitting the "insides" with heavy fragments of armor.
  • Glad
    Glad 27 June 2016 00: 53
    0
    Good article. Correct. It’s a pity that I noticed her a bit late. There are some clarifications and corrections regarding the cumulative effect and the terminology associated with it. One of these days I will explain and either send it to the respected Author in PM, or publish it here in the comments.