Military Review

Frigates will replace cruisers

67



The trigger for writing this review was a phrase from an article devoted to issues of the ratio of the volumes and loads of ships.

Modern ships need large volumes to deploy weapons and equipment. And these volumes compared with armored ships of the Second World War have increased significantly. AND, despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from primitive 50-x samples to the most modern, the volumes allocated for rocket weapon, do not decrease.

Alexey Polyakov.

Let's start with the fact that, contrary to the title “XXI Century”, the respected author for some reason was ashamed to consider modern ships.

Instead of the frigate “Adm. Gorshkov and the Type-45 destroyer under the guise of “modern ships” were considered cruisers of past eras: “Grozny”, “Golden Eagle”, “Glory”. With all due respect to the heroes of the past, they have as much in common with the “Gorshkov” as the 17th century Spanish galleon resembles the ADB of the Russo-Japanese War.

How is it that between the ships 60-80x. and modern frigates turned out to be a technological abyss deep in eternity? What technologies have gone so far that it turned out to be beyond the horizon of events?

A good example is the appearance of compact underdeck DPS, which changed the entire paradigm of storing and launching missile ammunition.

The rejection of the beam Mk.26 GMLS in favor of the notorious Mk.41 led to dramatic changes in the design of the ship.

Frigates will replace cruisers



Just gigantic volumes. More than artillery cellars and barbet towers of past artillery ships


Possessing the same ammunition (64 missiles), the Mk.41 installation was TWICE lighter than its predecessor (117 versus 265 tons, “dry weight” without missiles). Energy consumption decreased 2,5 times (200 instead of 495 kW in peak mode, due to the lack of the need to move the missiles and rotate the “stand” of the launcher). The number of seafarers to maintain and control the installation was halved (10 instead of 20).

The overall dimensions of 64-cell UVC are 8,7 x 6,3 x 7,7 m. For comparison, the length of the beam MK.26 Mod.2 exceeded 12 meters. The depth and width of the rocket cellar roughly corresponded to the DPS.

Yes, I completely forgot. This version of UVP is designed for longer (+ 1 meters) and heavy (by 2 times) new-generation missiles - space interceptors and Tomahawks. The Mark-41 has export modifications for conventional missiles - such DPS is even lighter and more compact.



So consider how appropriate it is to equate the cruisers 60-80x. to modern destroyers and frigates.

Progress in the field of missile weapons is not all. Now with examples of real ships, you will see what a tremendous path the radar, detection means and fire control systems have traveled.

The first choice was made by the author of the previous article - the 58 (“Grozny”) missile cruiser. 1962 year. The length of the 142 meter. Full displacement - 5500 tons.



His opponent will be the domestic frigate of the 22350 Ave. “Admiral Gorshkov” (on tests with 2015).



135 length meters. The total displacement is 4500 tons. Crew - 210 people (100 people. Less than the crew of the cruiser “Grozny”). Combat capabilities are incommensurable.

Ships in our time look different.

The first and most obvious is the absence of weapons on the decks. Storage and launch of missile ammunition produced from mines UVP, securely hidden in the depths of the hull. At the same time, the frigate's ammunition in the number and performance characteristics of the missiles exceeds all that was available on cruisers of previous eras.

On board the “Gorshkov” there are two UKKS modules, in total - 16 mines for the placement of strike weapons (supersonic anti-ship missiles Onyx, CD of the “Caliber” family). For comparison, on the cruiser of the 58 Ave there were two quadruple launchers and 16 of anti-ship missiles P-35. With no space inside the hull and had to stand on the open deck. If you do not take into account the performance of rockets, then the number of strike weapons cruiser and frigate have parity.

The anti-aircraft armament of the frigate is represented by the “Polyment-Redut” air defense missile system, whose ammunition load is located in the ATV cells 32. The launch weight of the 9М96Е2 rocket is 420 kg. The maximum firing range is 120 ... 150 km.

On board the cruiser “Grozny” there was also a Volna air defense system with 16 missile ammunition (two underdeck MIF-101 drums and a mobile girder launcher). The mass of the anti-aircraft missile is 923 kg., The maximum firing range of 15-18 km.


Launcher ZIF-101. For the correct perception of the dimensions, it is worth considering that the length of each rocket was 6 meters!


Once again, if we do not take into account the rate of fire of the complexes and the performance characteristics of the missiles, the modern frigate carries a similar in mass and twice as large in number rocket ammunition. If we turn a blind eye to the difference in combat capabilities, the parity of the rest of the weapons is also observed.

The armament of the old cruiser included two twin AK-726 artillery mounts, two AK-630 anti-aircraft cannon batteries, RBU and torpedo tubes.

A modern frigate is armed with one X-NUMX mm A-130 cannon, two Palash crews, and two quadruple TA anti-submarine torpedoes Pack-NK.

The only major difference is that the entire aft portion of the frigate superstructure is occupied. hangar ship helicopter. Unlike modern ships, the permanent basing of the aircraft on the cruiser 58 Ave was not foreseen (there was only a helipad).


The total of this calculation becomes a simple and obvious fact: the modern frigate, smaller by 1000 tons, carries more weapons than the cruisers of the 1960's. Which completely contradicts the statement:

... despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from the primitive 50-x samples to the most modern, the volumes allocated for rocket weapons do not decrease.




The second notable difference is the absence of bulky masts with a dozen parabolic antennas. The entire radar complex of a modern ship located inside the “pyramid” in the bow of the superstructure. The main secret of “Gorshkov” was the multipurpose radar 5П-20К “Polyment” of four fixed “mirrors” located on the lateral faces of the pyramid.



Opportunities "Polymeta" like martial fiction. Exceptionally high resolution. The ability to change the width of the beam. Instant (within milliseconds) scanning of a selected portion of the sky. Versatility and multitasking. Simultaneous firing on air targets up to 16.

At the top of the frigate's pyramidal fore-mast there is another antenna post. This is a general detection radar (5P27 “Furké-4” or “Fregat-MAE-4K”). The conciseness of anti-aircraft fire detection and control is the calling card of the frigate Admiral Gorshkov. Pass to the privileged club of the ships of the XXI century.

No bulky parabolic antennas and radar lights (than all the shipboard air defense systems of the past generation have sinned). The two universal radars take on the whole range of tasks for detecting and tracking air targets and controlling the missiles launched, ensuring the operation of the naval anti-aircraft weapons.



“Admiral Gorshkov” is far from the limit. On the horizon is another ship. Strong Nordic features in the color of “gray thunderstorm”. Meet: the Dutch air defense frigate “De Zeven Provinsien” (2002 year). The “Seven Provinces” radar complex consists of two systems: APAR multifunctional radar with four active headlights and SMART-L decimeter long-range radar capable of distinguishing targets in space orbits.

Terrible frigate with an even more sophisticated design.

Max. 2000 km detection range, 40 missile silos, helicopter and other universal weapons. From 2017, frigates of this type will be included in the US missile defense system in Europe.



In the picture - the antenna post “Yatagan” of the fire control system of the Volna air defense system. Five parabolic antennas to determine the exact position of the target and the transmission of radio commands to the launched missiles. For the initial detection used two more radars "Angara", placed on the tops of both masts.

And you say nothing has changed since then.

In principle, all these problems were peculiar to all ships of that time. Even the most advanced of domestic cruisers (1164 and 1144 Orlan avenues) sinned with a large number of cumbersome and inefficient equipment, their missiles required specialized guidance and target illumination stations. By the way, the American Aegis (1979 system of the year) suffers a similar disadvantage.

Complaints about the volume required for the placement of modern electronics and some special measures for cooling and air conditioning of the premises are just as naive. This whole baby talk is refuted by a single fact: all the means of detection and the equipment of the C-300 command centers on mobile chassis! And this is the beginning of 1980's, when even the most desperate fiction writers could not dream of laptops and “iPhones”.



Ice tundra, heat of the Hmeimim airbase, rain-snow, mobile air defense system should be able to work in any conditions! Does a similar complex on board a modern ship really need some huge “engine rooms" with incredible measures to control air quality?

What kind of nonsense? In what century do those who claim this live?

On the modern ship everything has changed. The layout, weapons, the composition of the means of detection and MSA, the power plant (high-performance diesel engines and turbines instead of boilers), automation, reduced the number of crew.

That is why it became possible to build compact warships with the most powerful strike and defensive weapons in the hull with a displacement of 4500-6000 tons.
Author:
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 21 March 2016 06: 49
    +14
    Just what used to be called a cruiser is now called a destroyer and a frigate.
    1. UVB
      UVB 21 March 2016 08: 40
      +8
      Quote: Kibalchish
      Just what used to be called a cruiser is now called a destroyer and a frigate.
      Project 58 was originally a destroyer, it was re-qualified as a cruiser later and, rather, for other reasons, because it turned into a ship of the 1st rank, with all the ensuing consequences.
      For comparison, on cruiser 58 there were two quad launchers and 16 anti-ship missiles P-35.
      An ammunition load of 16 pc can be called very conditional, since reloading in field conditions, especially in battle, was very problematic. But the ship turned out very beautiful!
      1. mashine
        mashine 21 March 2016 12: 44
        +3
        Oleg is cunning. To be objective, it was necessary to compare ships of the armor era and modern ships. And he compares how the weight and volume of the zur and radars of a modern ship and a ship older than 2 generations with the same set of weapons have changed. Oleg, the whole article does not pull past and answer Alex. Alex compared ships of the era of armor and RKR glory. You said that you need to compare a ship of the era of armor and for example a pot, but you deceived yourself.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 21 March 2016 17: 24
          +3
          Quote: mashine
          Oleg, the whole article does not pull past and answer Alex. Alex compared ships of the era of armor and RKR glory.

          Alex would have been great if not for the title of a series of articles:
          Ship armor in the XNUMXst century: all aspects of the problem

          Slava does not pull on the 21st century, which is what Oleg is talking about.
        2. Sergey-8848
          Sergey-8848 21 March 2016 21: 52
          0
          An interesting passage from the very beginning - The trigger for writing this review was a phrase from an article devoted to issues of the ratio of the volumes and loads of ships.
          Question for the author - what is trigger, and, incidentally, to what extent and with what fright this term is chosen as the boundary for a dispute between insightful shipbuilders and not quite thoughtful, but active laymen.
          1. S-kerrigan
            S-kerrigan 22 March 2016 06: 05
            +3
            Not an author, but a programmer. A trigger is a trigger event / object for launching some other command / action / program.

            T.O. in this case, this is the reason to write an answer to the opponent’s argument.
        3. S-kerrigan
          S-kerrigan 22 March 2016 06: 11
          +2
          I will stand up for the author. Specifically, this article is an attempt to prove that some of Alex's arguments are unsubstantiated. Specifically, there is no purpose in it to compare "armor" with "non-armor" ships.
          At Alex, the whole line is built on what? On the fact that everything is miniaturizing, however, an increase in the shock potential eats up this minimization. Oleg proved that this is not so.

          I, as an IT employee, agree with him. Modern software works wild wonders. It is possible to do a crazy level of automation. And this is a reduction in the crew and all that comes from it.
    2. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 21 March 2016 08: 47
      +4
      I suppose, if you reconstruct the "Eagles" into modern ships with their displacement, you will get something fantastic!
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 21 March 2016 10: 26
        +7
        ShturmKGB
        I suppose, if you reconstruct the "Eagles" into modern ships with their displacement, you will get something fantastic!

        Destroyer Leader with a displacement of 15 tons is almost half smaller than Orlan (000 tons), but will carry more combat systems and missiles. The Leader is called a destroyer, although the Atlanteans have a displacement of 24 tons, and they were not built in 000 years, and in the 11s.
        1. g1v2
          g1v2 21 March 2016 13: 31
          +11
          The article has a right to exist. In principle, all equipment becomes more miniature and compact, and this is in all areas of life. Compare a modern smartphone - in fact, a computer in your pocket and computers 25 years ago. Tch agrees with Kaptsov. The 22350 range of frigates in armament and capabilities is a replacement for many ships of the 1st rank. If you compare, it becomes obvious that frigate 22350 is, by most indicators, more powerful than the same destroyers 956. Including frigates 22350 will become the basis of the ocean fleet for a long time.
          The destroyer is the leader, but in fact the cruiser is still an arsenal ship and there will not be many of them. This is the shock force for big things. They will be built for a long time and there will be few of them, so the pair of Eagles and 3 Atlanta all this time will be the basis of the shock force of the surface fleet.
          However, the modified old project will rarely be able to compare in effectiveness with a new one built from scratch for a specific set of equipment and weapons.
          1. Tarikxnumx
            Tarikxnumx 21 March 2016 22: 02
            +6
            Do not confuse household microprocessor technology with military and space technology. Completely different requirements for reliability and fault tolerance. Accordingly, completely different overall indicators of both the electronics themselves and the cases protecting it. Will the smartphone withstand the EMP of a nuclear strike? Will the smartphone work at accelerations over 200 G? Gigabit networks, wired networks and 100 or more megabit wireless networks have long been in use around the world, and the British have only 8 Mbps of communication channels on the new aircraft carrier. But the only question is what will happen to all these Wi-Fi and 4G if EW funds work? And 8Mbit is most likely shitty, but they will work. Because noise immunity, because encryption. By the way, banks are still sitting on the X25 protocol, ancient as ... a mammoth, but reliable, fault-tolerant and able to work on any lines.
            Modern military computers, although seriously reduced, are not as much as you think. And the performance also did not grow much. Because the main priority in the development is primarily fault tolerance and reliability. Who wants to start the third world due to the fact that the super-fast 16-core 100Hz processor gave BSOD due to a jump in the cramp and gave the command to launch some poplar or minuteman. wassat
            P.S. A striking example of this is the filling of the Curiosity rover -
            The rover has two identical on-board computers called the “Rover Compute Element” (RCE) under the control of the RAD750 processor with a frequency of 200 MHz; they contain radiation resistant memory. Each computer includes 256 KB of EEPROM, 256 MB of DRAM, and 2 GB of flash memory. [64] This amount, in general, is more than 3 MB of EEPROM, [65] 128 MB of DRAM, and 256 MB of flash memory, which were on the rovers Spirit and Opportunity. [66] The multitasking RTOS VxWorks is used.
            The military has the same technique. Slowly, dimensionally, but super reliable ...
      2. xtur
        xtur 21 March 2016 10: 40
        +5
        > if you reconstruct "Orlany" into modern ships with their displacement, you get something fantastic!

        it is - see LJ navy-korabel estimates for the maximum possible location of anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles. It turned out to be a ship with absolutely fantastic fire capabilities
      3. Kenneth
        Kenneth 21 March 2016 11: 08
        0
        Maybe cheaper to build a new one
    3. ism_ek
      ism_ek 21 March 2016 11: 06
      +4
      Quote: Kibalchish
      Just what used to be called a cruiser is now called a destroyer and a frigate.

      Russia does not have money, therefore, we are building frigates
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 21 March 2016 16: 39
        +3
        it's not just about money.
        If you want to sell products, you won’t immediately open Auchan. You can limit yourself to a small stall for milk.
        So it is here: at 22350, technologies are being developed that will go to the "leader" in the future. The same "polyment-Redut", A-192, UVP, etc.
    4. Malkor
      Malkor 21 March 2016 11: 22
      +2
      Another slop.
      Instead of the frigate “Adm. Gorshkov and the Type-45 destroyer under the guise of “modern ships” were considered cruisers of past eras: “Grozny”, “Golden Eagle”, “Glory”. With all due respect to the heroes of the past, they have as much in common with the “Gorshkov” as the 17th century Spanish galleon resembles the ADB of the Russo-Japanese War.

      The author bears as usual: EBR can crush a Spanish galleon without the use of weapons, and the frigate “Adm. Gorshkov ”cannot do this with the cruiser Slava, for example.
      An urgent need to score a darling and read the sane author.
    5. Megatron
      Megatron 21 March 2016 15: 43
      +4
      Every time I look at Grozny and I can’t tear myself away - a fantastically beautiful ship, the embodiment of power!
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 21 March 2016 17: 25
        +1
        Quote: Megatron
        Every time I look at Grozny and I can’t tear myself away - a fantastically beautiful ship, the embodiment of power!


        Look at the embodiment of power in squeakers and muskets, compared with AK-12, AEK-971, FN Skar.
  2. Maegrom
    Maegrom 21 March 2016 07: 04
    +8
    The conclusion made me laugh. "Compact ships ... - 6000 tons". Just project 58 fits well with a margin. Degradation is evident, though not shipbuilding, but logic. Out of a couple of not inaccuracies in the polemical article, recognized by Alexei, empty demagoguery was fanned.
    1. Santa Fe
      21 March 2016 07: 22
      +2
      Quote: Maegrom
      From a pair of inaccuracies polemical articles recognized by Alexei, inflated empty demagoguery.

      Pairs of inaccuracies?

      The whole article was devoted to the proof of this:
      Modern ships need large volumes to accommodate weapons and equipment. And these volumes in comparison with the armored ships of the Second World War have grown significantly. And, despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from primitive 50's to the most modern ones, the volumes allocated to missile weapons are not decreasing.

      The Flying Dutchman and "Gorshkov" are a direct refutation of this opus
      1. Maegrom
        Maegrom 21 March 2016 07: 47
        +8
        In the comments, it was recognized that they are being reduced, but the increase in compactness either leads to a certain decrease in the overall dimensions of the vessel, or the stock of weapons increases. Your criticism in this article is not part of your overall position.
        1. Santa Fe
          21 March 2016 07: 59
          +1
          Quote: Maegrom
          but an increase in compactness either leads to a certain decrease in the overall dimensions of the vessel, or the stock of weapons increases

          The increase in compactness leads to the fact that the "filling" of a modern ship, capable of fighting targets on the ground, in the air and even in space - fits in very compact dimensions with / and 4500-6000 tons

          Which contradicts the whole essence of the previous article:
          Despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from primitive 50's to the most modern ones, the volumes allocated to missile weapons are not decreasing. Any an attempt to pull the armor over these volumes leads to such a refinement of the reservation that it turns into foil.

          Yeah fig there

          "Sheathing" a 135-meter 4500-ton ship with constructive protection is not a problem at all. During WWII, 200-meter giants (Baltimore, DeMoin) were sheathed with six-inch armor

          In fact, it will be a new box-hull with a citadel differentiated in thickness to accommodate all the "stuffing" of a frigate like the Dutchman or Gorshkov. With a full displacement of 8-10 thousand tons
          1. Maegrom
            Maegrom 21 March 2016 08: 47
            +5
            Yes, but in 8-10 thousand tons it is already possible to build a ship (destroyer without a full reservation) to a level exceeding the payload. About that and speech.
            1. Santa Fe
              21 March 2016 08: 58
              0
              Quote: Maegrom
              Yes, but in 8 - 10 thousand tons it is already possible to build a ship (destroyer without a full reservation) to a level exceeding the payload

              I understood your idea, but in life, not everything comes down to displacement and payload

              In battle, an unprotected destroyer is unlikely to have time to release its ammunition, then what's the point?

              A frigate of the Dutchman level with powerful structural protection has great combat stability. And less than half the cost of a cardboard destroyer, driven to the brim by electronics and UVP
          2. brn521
            brn521 21 March 2016 12: 18
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            "Sheathing" a 135-meter 4500-ton ship with constructive protection is not a problem at all

            Pyramidal superstructure with antennas also sheathe armor? And then the ammunition will not have time to shoot, as you have to drag along to the rembase, without completing the task. But a ship without armor of the same displacement (8-10 thousand tons) will be able to drag a more branchy superstructure that will not die from a single hit by a light rocket. It will also be equipped with doubled ammunition, doubling the rate of fire and ammunition. Here you need to know at least the prices and operating costs. And then it can easily become clear that for a certain fairly short period of time due to increased costs (doubling the displacement for the sake of armor), the mini-battleship will be comparable to a classmate, but will be half as much in armament. For example, adjusting home locations to double the displacement will cost more than twice, but substantially more.
      2. Operator
        Operator 21 March 2016 09: 35
        +7
        No need to pull an owl on the globe - Alexey, as part of this quote, compared modern ships and WWII ships.

        Your second stretch of the owl is an attempt to challenge the following conclusion from Alexey's article: "And, despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from primitive samples of the 50s to the most modern, the volumes allocated for rocket weapons are not decreasing."
        The conclusion is absolutely true both for the ships of the 20 century and the 21 century, since for the latter the ammunition and missile dimensions have increased and a hangar for helicopters has appeared (as you yourself mention in your article).

        Your third stretch of an owl is a comparison of the mass-dimensional characteristics of the land and sea air defense systems, despite the fact that the land complex shown in your photos is always incomplete (from one to several vehicles are missing), and most importantly, it does not contain a full ammunition of missiles that are stored aboard a ship.

        The only evidence of your thesis about the decrease in the internal volumes of ships of the 21 century compared to the 20 century (of equal displacement) can be only one thing - a specific comparison of the cubic capacity.

        It is the large cubic capacity of modern ships that makes any attempts to apply ballistic reservation to them pointless.

        PS The expansion of the combat functionality of modern ships without increasing their displacement also works against booking, because leads to an increase in the same cubic capacity.
  3. Alex_59
    Alex_59 21 March 2016 07: 04
    +9
    high performance diesels
    It's five! laughing
    1. Santa Fe
      21 March 2016 07: 20
      -1
      Quote: Alex_59
      It's five!

      I hope that in the following articles you will stop taking Glory as a model

      due to the technology of the time, this is a ship with the fragility of a crystal glass
      which in principle is impossible to protect. Missiles on deck, three mission-critical radars, all in the open, hit from any angle

      And by the way, what's so funny about diesel efficiency? I do not use it just because of the insignificant prices for gasoline
    2. aiw
      aiw 21 March 2016 09: 17
      +4
      Alexey, thanks for your series of articles, I look forward to graduation.

      Alas, not everyone shows unfinished work. I wouldn’t show Kaptsov ...
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 21 March 2016 16: 14
        +4
        Quote: aiw
        Alas, not everyone shows unfinished work. I wouldn’t show Kaptsov ...

        Yes, it is finished, I dashed it a month ago, I decided to post it only now. It just doesn’t fit into one article, too much. Broke into 4 parts, administrators do not immediately spread, but gradually.
        And Oleg apparently decided that I wrote as a counterweight to him. Although this is not so. I just wanted to figure it out for myself - and how it all really works.
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 21 March 2016 07: 08
    +10
    Again, everything is turned upside down! request
    Mr. Polyakov began a series of articles to show why the armor disappeared on the post-war ships. Naturally, he showed on the ships, which are almost direct followers of artillery, armored cruisers. What appears now is already the development and improvement of the missile ships themselves. Yes, the clarification of new weapons and materials has reduced and changed the weight loads, which you, Mr. Kaptsov, are trying to point out in order to hint at the return of the armor ...
    Do not replace the concept. Yes, and it would be foolish to skip over the era following the artillery to modern models .. Everything is developing, but it is impossible to explain something selectively. Although this is your style wink
    In this article I do not agree with you. Polyakov’s evidence base is consistent, yours is spasmodic.
    Minus hi
    1. avt
      avt 21 March 2016 08: 57
      +5
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Again, everything is turned upside down!

      What kind of nonsense? In what century do those who claim this live?
      “I don’t understand anything!” request laughing Project 58 actually was originally called the destroyer ... but okay, this renaming even fits into Oleg’s concept. But where is the armor !? Call it! Everything else in the article fits into
      On the modern ship everything has changed. The layout, weapons, the composition of the means of detection and MSA, the power plant (high-performance diesel engines and turbines instead of boilers), automation, reduced the number of crew.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      By the way, "De Zeven Provincien", like many European ships, is structurally underloaded

      It’s fortunate for him to push in the non-editable is our national tradition in shipbuilding, especially now, when a series of universal corvettes overloaded with weapons was sanded up and .... suddenly patrols / convoys of similar displacement were needed. Who would have thought what a surprise! wassat
  5. 89067359490
    89067359490 21 March 2016 07: 16
    +4
    Not to the village, not to the city, but reading all this, I remembered Mikhalkov's poem about two rams.
  6. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 21 March 2016 07: 39
    +3
    Just like Don Quixote, while there’s no talk about armor, you set out clever thoughts, but how it comes to chivalry and honor ...
    But let's wait for the fourth part, from Polyakov.
  7. Santa Fe
    21 March 2016 07: 44
    -1
    By the way, "De Zeven Provincien", like many European ships, is structurally underloaded

    The picture clearly shows that instead of the sixth section of the UVP - a bare plate. B / c in peacetime artificially limited to 40 missiles

    In wartime, such a frigate can be installed even more weapon systems
  8. Rokossovsky
    Rokossovsky 21 March 2016 08: 04
    +6
    all detection equipment and equipment of C-300 command posts fit on mobile chassis

    As far as I understand, the S-300В division includes not only launchers and transport-loading vehicles. There are 4-5 radars for various purposes. That is, we have a quote from Wikipedia:
    Organizational represents a single air defense missile division comprising para combat 9S457 control one radar Omnidirection 9S15MT (B), a radar sector review 9S19M2 (modification C 300V2 to increase the ability to detect ballistic targets instead radar 9S15M Omnidirection used synchronized over fiber optical cable, two 9С19М2 radars), four multi-channel MSNR missile guidance stations 9С32, 8 self-propelled launchers 9А82 (for missiles 9М82), 16 self-propelled launchers x 9A83 units (for 9M83 missiles), 4 self-propelled launchers and 984 missiles (for maneuvering 9M82 missiles) and 8 self-propelled launchers and loading 9X85 launchers (for maneuvering with 9X83 batteries and the number of batteries and XNUMX NUMBER number of batteries and XNUMXNXX in divisions varies and differs from the intended)

    That is, all this is clearly located on more than one chassis, because in this case the complex would be the size of a mining excavator or even more!
    Does a similar complex aboard a modern ship need some huge “engine rooms” with incredible air quality control measures?

    We will not take into account the radar antennas themselves, but the rest should be done somewhere else! And this is not less than 20 installations for various purposes! Accordingly, the frigate / destroyer / cruiser will need significant volumes in order to accommodate all this and be able to serve. IMHO!

    And again, a lot of unfounded allegations, not supported by anything! Alexey Polyakov in his article gives a lot of comparative tables, diagrams, there are some numbers that can be operated on. There is nothing besides photos, drawings of UVP Mk41 and beautiful words of the author. Water ...
    In general, one way or another, he put the article + exclusively for Mr. Kaptsov's obstinacy.
    1. Santa Fe
      21 March 2016 08: 39
      -2
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      That is, it is all clearly located on more than one chassis

      Yes, at least three
      these are insignificant sizes against the background of the ship
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      Accordingly, the frigate / destroyer / cruiser will need significant volumes in order to accommodate all this and be able to serve

      135 meters of length, 4500 tons
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      There are 4-5 radars for various purposes.

      As you can see, the ships do very well with two radars, they do not need more. Moreover, the Dutchman's capabilities are more than that of the C-300 mod. 1978 of the year

      without any engine rooms
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      And this is not less than 20 installations

      What installations?
      under deck in the bow - block 9х6х8 meters, on 64 launch cells
      without any transport and loading machines
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      comparison tables, diagrams, there are no numbers that can be operated on.

      he just gives his fantasies for serious calculations
      from where he could calculate the same useful volume occupied by the armament of the ship, having neither the 3D model, nor even the detailed drawings of domestic and foreign ships. And what exactly is included in this volume?

      as well as take into account an infinite number of factors when analyzing the reliability of a ship’s air defense system
      GEM - radar - UVP. But doesn’t want to calculate, for example, a compressor and a water pump? MK.41 for cooling requires 320 gallons of sea water per minute, without them the installation simply cannot shoot.

      The price of such calculations = 0. Beautiful numbers for the layman
      Quote: Rokossovsky
      There is nothing besides photos, drawings of UVP Mk41 and beautiful words of the author. Water ...

      You are just biased

      it is replete with numbers and comparisons

      and by the way, these are not drawings. there is a vertical section of a ZIF-101 and a pair of three-dimensional images of μNUMX and 26
      1. Rokossovsky
        Rokossovsky 21 March 2016 09: 03
        +3
        As you can see, the ships do very well with two radars, they don’t need more

        Therefore, I wrote that we will not take into account the radar antennas themselves. A modern frigate is bypassed by a universal one.
        What installations?
        under deck in the bow - block 9х6х8 meters, on 64 launch cells
        without any transport and loading machines

        Oleg, the key phrase "there are 4-5 radars for various purposes", do not cling to these transport-loading vehicles, we are not talking about them! It meant that the UVP glasses by themselves will not shoot and for their full-fledged operation a sufficiently large amount of equipment is needed, which needs to be placed and maintained somewhere!
        it is replete with numbers and comparisons

        TTX from Wikipedia? It's a little ...
        You are just biased

        God forbid!
        In my opinion, the C300 example was not correct, which prompted me to comment on your article. hi
        1. Santa Fe
          21 March 2016 09: 31
          0
          Quote: Rokossovsky
          Therefore, I wrote that we will not take into account the radar antennas themselves. A modern frigate is bypassed by a universal one.

          Then the command post remains from the equipment. Do you think that it does not fit in the trader of a regular truck?

          Control panel for container "Club" fit in the same 40 foot container

          Quote: Rokossovsky
          UVP glasses themselves will not shoot, and for their full-fledged work, a sufficiently large amount of equipment is needed

          What equipment

          Status panel - 100 pounds
          Remote launch enable panel - 30 pounds
          Launch control unit - 1350 pounds
          their sizes are also negligible
          Quote: Rokossovsky
          In my opinion, the example with С300 was not correct

          What exactly is it incorrect?
          Long-range SAM, with the characteristics of the same Redoubt
          1. Rokossovsky
            Rokossovsky 21 March 2016 10: 07
            +3
            The control panel of the container "Club" fits in the same 40-foot container

            1. What does the Club have to do with air defense / missile defense?
            2. How many Clubs are in the army now? Is it adopted? Why again are these your favorite examples with non-existent examples of technology!
            their sizes are also negligible

            Ala 1144 in 25 thousand tons of displacement is obtained in a string with the world ...

            Then the command post remains from the equipment. Do you think that it does not fit in the trailer of a regular truck?


            A modern building can also be controlled from one computer in the control room, but this does not mean that the computer heats you with water in the batteries and drives the air through the ventilation! Many systems are involved in this and they occupy a considerable amount.
            Let's put this thing on a barge and see how many planes / missiles it will bring down in the form shown in your photo
            1. Santa Fe
              21 March 2016 10: 20
              -1
              That is, we have dealt with computers. The computing center for issuing the "Caliber" flight task is placed in the closet. Command post S-300 - on a truck chassis

              The question is about electricity, water and ventilation - it is relevant on any ship. At least rocket, at least artillery. And if ships exist, then the issue is resolved.

              With a barge, approximately the same modules are inside the Caspian flotilla’s RTOs. And, as you can see, 700 tons were enough to accommodate all the equipment + other weapons
              1. Rokossovsky
                Rokossovsky 21 March 2016 11: 18
                +4
                And if ships exist, then the issue is resolved

                Resolved. And the solution required the use of a certain usable volume. Depending on the type of ship, the volume varies. I, as you know it!

                approximately the same modules are inside the interregional company of the Caspian flotilla. And, as you can see, 700 tons were enough to accommodate all the equipment + other weapons

                So who argues that ?! And let's install on Polyana-Redoubt Buyan, normal mine and torpedo armament, ASG, a helicopter hangar! What do we get? And we get the frigate pr.22350 in 4500 thousand tons of displacement.
                In 700 tons, it simply will not fit in! It is impossible to cram the inhospitable! It is impossible to pour twenty liters of water into a ten-liter pan!
                Any additional equipment or weapons will require additional volumes, which will undoubtedly affect the displacement. Actually, this was discussed in yesterday's article by Alexei Polyakov:
                Modern ships need large volumes to accommodate weapons and equipment. And these volumes in comparison with the armored ships of the Second World War have grown significantly. And, despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from primitive 50's to the most modern ones, the volumes allocated to missile weapons are not decreasing

                With this statement, I completely agree!
                But with yours:
                That is why it became possible to build compact warships with powerful shock and defensive weapons in a hull with a displacement of 4500-6000 tons
                no, for one simple reason - Zwolvt!
                Well this is how it turns out ?! Ultramodern, to the last screw automated, only 150 crew people, without armor and still 14.5 thousand tons! Burke with the same weapons in 2 times less!
                Inconsistency? request
                1. Santa Fe
                  21 March 2016 11: 43
                  -1
                  Quote: Rokossovsky
                  for one simple reason - Zwolvt!

                  And?

                  keep up the thought
                  1. Rokossovsky
                    Rokossovsky 21 March 2016 12: 52
                    +2
                    keep up the thought

                    The newest ship in 2 times the size of the destroyer 70's, with similar weapons and functionality, even despite the total automation.
                    How does this fit in with the words:
                    Everything has changed on a modern ship. The layout, weapons, the composition of the detection and SLA, powerplant, automation, reduced crew.

                    That is why it became possible to build compact warships with powerful shock and defensive weapons in a hull with a displacement of 4500-6000 tons

                    Why did Zwolt become bigger, not smaller than Burke?
  9. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 21 March 2016 08: 20
    +8
    The cycle from the issuance of a design assignment to "hardware" takes on average 20-25 years for us. what the foe has! Despite the scientific and technological progress? Subtract from pr.58 this "twenty" (1962-20 = 1942?), Get a paradoxical result - was the concept of the ROCKET cruiser concept laid down in the harsh years of the Second World War? Or, on the contrary, the Soviet school of naval shipbuilding overtook the TIME, "giving out on the mountain" the most modern ship of that time (60-70s)! Yes, and the layout (architecture) of the project was formed and is still being formed based on the principle "what was in the refrigerator available)? At that time, consoles were in fashion, now mines are also logical! When I was doing my graduation project in 1987, the SKR on the basis of pr.1124, then he could also only predict the composition of weapons and vehicles, however, we were introduced to promising samples (there were no Kalibr anti-ship missiles at all, so I laid a place for Uranus, our analogue of Harpoon, and instead of AK-630 "Kortik"). The result was pr.20630, which I am very happy about! So, if the author considers himself Columbus and the discoverer of America, then let him! The main thing is, do the others think so?
  10. baudolino
    baudolino 21 March 2016 08: 20
    +3
    If you call the modern destroyer a galleon or a gallery, then basically nothing will change. Both oars, sails, and mines on these ships have long been gone. The difference is only in size, armament and intended service options.
  11. Lapkonium
    Lapkonium 21 March 2016 08: 39
    +2
    Unexpectedly, but the discussion seems to be starting to come to some kind of logical conclusion. Is it possible that the comrades Kaptsov and Polyakov agree that it was impossible to armor the vessels of the second half of the XNUMXth century, and that on the ships of the XNUMXst century, the armor, due to the reduction in the number of antennas and weapons on the deck, takes place?
  12. Dmitriy51
    Dmitriy51 21 March 2016 08: 41
    0
    Well, let's see what kind of high-performance diesel engines and turbines are there ...
    and most importantly, what is their term for overhaul, and how are they with suppliers of spare parts.
    1. Santa Fe
      21 March 2016 09: 09
      -1
      Quote: Dmitriy51
      Well, let's see what kind of high-performance diesel engines and turbines are there ...

      Large anti-submarine ship Ave. 1134A (boiler turbine installation), fuel reserve 1660 tons.
      5200 miles on 18 knots

      Destroyer "Arleigh Burke" (gas turbine power plant) - 1300 tons of fuel, 6000 miles at 18 knots.
      1. aiw
        aiw 21 March 2016 09: 34
        +2
        Oleg, are you going to book chimneys and ducts for supplying air to the gas turbine? When they are destroyed, the gas turbine engine will not work, and these channels will be much more than the gas turbine engines / four-stroke diesel engines ... It is terrible to think what will remain of the gas turbine engine after undermining the warhead in the chimney and passing the shock wave through the chimney, it will wrap the turbine like sticky.
        1. Santa Fe
          21 March 2016 09: 42
          0
          Quote: aiw
          and you are going to book chimneys and channels for supplying air to the gas turbine

          They pass inside the citadel, why else to book
          Quote: aiw
          It’s scary to think about what remains of the gas turbine after the undermining of the warhead in the chimney

          It’s scary to imagine what happens when RCC gets into ANY part of a modern destroyer
          1. aiw
            aiw 21 March 2016 09: 54
            +3
            > They pass inside the citadel, why book from elsewhere

            Moreover, they have a significant volume, increase the size of the citadel and ultimately reduce the thickness of the armor. Oleg, well, even LK did not have an adequate reservation for chimneys and supply channels, although at KTU they were less green.

            > It's scary to imagine what will happen when an anti-ship missile hits ANY part of a modern destroyer

            From the fact that you add another 4500t to the armor to 1000t it will not get better - RCC at 3M speed will simply not notice this armor. Rather, it will get worse - an undermining of warheads inside the citadel will cause more severe damage than undermining a similar warhead inside a similar unarmored volume.

            For modern RCC, the concept of all-or-nothing does not work, it is worse than just nothing. It makes sense to book vital units, duplicate and evenly distribute them throughout the hull. So s-but they do it ...
            1. Santa Fe
              21 March 2016 10: 13
              -5
              Quote: aiw
              Moreover, they have a significant volume, increase the size of the citadel

              Where to increase, you at least have an idea of ​​what you write

              They are already there, and judging by the dimensions of modern frigates, there are no problems with the dimensions of the chimneys
              midship width 16-18 meters
              Quote: aiw
              RCC at 3M speed simply does not notice this armor

              Existence of 12,7 DShK does not cancel body armor

              99% percent of the world's missiles - subsonic
              Quote: aiw
              For modern RCC, the concept of all-or-nothing does not work, it is worse than just nothing.

              And I have numbers and reasons to think otherwise
              1. aiw
                aiw 21 March 2016 10: 22
                +3
                > Where they increase, you at least have an idea of ​​what you are writing about

                I am yes, but you seem not.

                > They are already there, and judging by the dimensions of modern frigates, there are no problems with the dimensions of the chimneys

                Who are they? Bronecadels on the frigate fool ? While there is no reservation there are no problems with volumes.

                > The existence of 12,7 DShK does not cancel body armor

                Fi, Oleg. In decent people, the analogy is neither argument nor proof. hi

                > 99% of the world's missiles are subsonic

                Because 99. (9)% of the ships in the world are not armored. Armored ships will appear - supersonic anti-ship missiles will massively come into service (the Russian Navy has already ...). Modifying anti-ship missiles is much easier than building an armored cruiser.

                > And I have numbers and reasons to think otherwise

                If you are talking about the numbers and grounds that you cite in your articles, they do not stand up to criticism. hi
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. Hog
              Hog 21 March 2016 23: 38
              0
              http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Jap_Cr_1/Draw/14.jpg
              Booking scheme of TKr Mioko, it is perfectly visible that part of the chimneys is located in the citadel and does not occupy "significant volumes", and part above it (the citadel) is already armored.
  13. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 21 March 2016 08: 44
    +5
    Oleg once again juggles and puts everything upside down.

    And why in the publication of a photo of the military S-300V air defense system? The main purpose of which is to protect against ballistic missile attacks. request
    1. Santa Fe
      21 March 2016 09: 01
      -2
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      The main purpose of which is to protect against ballistic missile attacks

      from this his design has become easier?

      Composition of the "Patriot" complex
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 21 March 2016 17: 42
        +1
        And why do not you bring the ship's analogue of the S-300? There, all volumes are mass, as well as other characteristics.
    2. bk316
      bk316 22 March 2016 16: 55
      +2
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      And why in the publication of the photo of the military S-300V air defense system?

      Probably because he didn’t have pictures of the fort, but that doesn’t change the meaning; for the fort, you don’t need a 50n50 engine room and megawatt power.
  14. Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 21 March 2016 09: 14
    0
    Quote: Rokossovsky

    In general, one way or another, he put the article + exclusively for Mr. Kaptsov's obstinacy.

    Also set + out of respect for the unbending perseverance with which the author defends his opinion.
  15. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 21 March 2016 09: 29
    +3
    I have Cognitive Dissonance - not a word about armor :-D
  16. nazar_0753
    nazar_0753 21 March 2016 09: 38
    +5
    Friends, the end of the world is coming - in Kaptsov’s article there is not a single mention of the reservation of ships and the need to build battleships and dreadnought. We stock up with stew, salt and matches ... laughing
    1. Tarikxnumx
      Tarikxnumx 21 March 2016 17: 11
      +2
      I have a suspicion that this is caused by our last discus in the comments to his previous article. wink For Mr. Kaptsov, famous for his tenacity in upholding his point of view, did not deign to answer my last two comments on the types of warheads used in RCC. laughing

      P.S. Although, maybe I'm flattering myself. It is very likely that Mr. Kaptsov stocks up with killer arguments in favor of armor and battleships wassat
  17. Poppy
    Poppy 21 March 2016 10: 52
    0
    but visually Grozny is still prettier
  18. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 21 March 2016 12: 16
    0
    There was one topic in the end, the discussion received was completely different, well, you can not cover the construction of ships of the 1st rank and Admiral. Frigates, yes, but the cruisers and TARKR and TAVKR would be useful to us, but there is no strength to build yet
  19. Bradypodidae
    Bradypodidae 21 March 2016 12: 51
    0
    And what's the catch to compare a frigate of the early 21st century with a cruiser of the mid-20th century? So let's compare the cruiser "Aurora" and the corvette "Guarding" and conclude that corvettes are replacing cruisers. Time is ticking, weapons are improving, and if you compare a frigate, destroyer (even "Leader") with a hypothetical cruiser of the 21st century, then immediately it will be clear that the cruiser is more powerful, and the fact that frigates are replacing cruisers is due to a lack of resources, and not because frigates are so imba.
  20. RPG_
    RPG_ 21 March 2016 13: 05
    0
    Everything seems to be correct and there is nothing to complain about, but still several separate radars are better than one universal one. Both from the point of view of survivability and from the point of view of efficiency.
    1. xtur
      xtur 21 March 2016 19: 53
      0
      > but still several separate radars are better than one universal

      In such cases, you need to talk about reservations, kmk
  21. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 21 March 2016 13: 22
    +1
    Well, I didn’t expect such an article from Oleg, in principle, there’s nothing to complain about. I put a plus.
  22. mz
    mz 21 March 2016 14: 01
    0
    For a long time and not without interest I have been reading articles by Oleg Kaptsov. Except for a large number of comments "the author, as always, enters"; "Yes, give him at least a stake on his head"; "the smartest, but all the fools or what?" and a very, very small number of opponents who found particular inconsistencies or incorrectness in the author's conclusions, NOBODY could convincingly, with technical or documentary details, prove him wrong. Especially considering the fact that Oleg Kaptsov builds his articles on documentary material with a "was-then" comparison, supported by photographic facts.
  23. Wasiliy1985
    Wasiliy1985 21 March 2016 22: 41
    0
    Question to Oleg Kaptsov: what does Blind Pew have to do with you?
  24. bk316
    bk316 22 March 2016 16: 15
    +2
    Quote: TarIK2017
    And 8Mbit is most likely shitty, but they will work. Because noise immunity, because encryption

    How is noise immunity and encryption related to 8Mbit?
    Do you think there is such redundancy that the useful band is 4 orders of magnitude less?

    Regarding X.25, tell me why is it more fault tolerant than any HSPR?
    And on top of what does he know how to work that TCP cannot work?

    So in reality, military electronics are slower and more voluminous than civilian, but still MUCH faster and smaller than computers when they built the aforementioned cruisers.
  25. Real stalinist
    Real stalinist 24 March 2016 22: 10
    0
    Kaptsov steers !!!
  26. Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 29 March 2016 07: 48
    0
    Compare the volume of hardware S-75. S-300 and S-400, they are approximately the same, but the S-400 has a higher range, the number of simultaneously fired targets, and the nomenclature of these targets is greater. Modern ships shoot down ballistic missiles, low-flying targets, and in the 60-70s what targets they could hit. The volumes of electronics on warships are not decreasing because she (electronics) has to solve more problems.