Military Review

Constructive Protection Dispute

127



In the “Fleet” section, a number of articles were published that inspire certain fears for the weak minds of the younger generation. It is clear that there is spring in the courtyard, and the EGE will soon come, but no one forbids learning to think logically before rushing to multiply the first available numbers.

Do not count where necessary, and count where it is impossible. For conducting rigorous calculations, no less rigorous initial data are necessary. And the more complex the system, the more various factors affecting the result. It is impossible to make scientific calculations without having accurate information about the layout of a warship, the distribution of loads on its decks and platforms, without specific values ​​of the load items, without taking into account the lengthening of the hull and the shape of the lines of its underwater part.

At the amateur level, the calculation of exact parameters is impossible. This should be done by those whose professional duties include such calculations.



We can only draw general conclusions and find potential solutions to problems, focusing on known facts about similar constructions. Not owning all the coefficients and baseline data, publishing the results with an accuracy of three decimal places is a sure sign of juggling with facts and pseudoscience.

The simplest example: the calculation of the reliability of the weapons systems of the ship according to the scheme of the GEM - MSA - UVP. The author of the calculation hardly guessed that when firing from the Mk.41 installation, air under pressure of 225 pounds per square meter was required. inch (15 atm.) and continuous cooling with seawater - 1050 gallons per minute. The arming of “Burke” will immediately fail if the pump and the main compressor HFC-134a are damaged.

But this was not taken into account in the presented calculations.

The reliability of the system is reduced in all modern ships. No wonder. To disarm long-range air defense of the Cleveland cruiser, you need to either destroy all 6 AU 127-mm, or 2 KDP, or power engineering (electricity supply to KDP and AU drives). Destruction of one KDP or several AUs does not lead to complete system failure.


Damage to the main switchboard or fuse compartment was immediately brought to the brink of destruction of the WWII era cruiser. So no need to wishful thinking. Critical systems are available on any ship - what now, what 70 years ago. And they have a stronger relationship than it might seem from the outside.

The role of electricity in the combat capability of WWII ships is incommensurable less, because even with the power off, the fire can continue with manual shells and coarse guidance with optics ...


No one was willing to rotate the 300-ton tower by hand. However, they would not even have deployed even the universal AU of the Cleveland cruiser.

Constructive Protection Dispute


... armored ancestors could only shoot from guns within sight. And modern ships are universal and able to destroy targets hundreds of kilometers away. Such a qualitative leap is accompanied by certain losses, including the complication of armaments and as a result, decreased reliability, increased vulnerability, and increased sensitivity to failures.


Gyroscopic speakers and multi-ton analog computers of ships of the time of WWII broke down from the slightest shaking.

The one who took to compare reliability weapons ships of different eras, somehow took into account the difference between the sensitive mechanics of gyroscopic KDP devices and modern circuits that are extremely resistant to strong shocks and vibrations? Not? Then what kind of "scientific" can claim such a "calculation"?

Today, the elimination of a ship from active combat can only be turning off its radar.


In the old days, when the ship was de-energized, sailors could manually fire from 20-mm anti-aircraft guns. Modern destroyers also have autonomous short-range air defense systems. Instead of the primitive “Erlikonov”, the “Phalanx” automata with their own fire control radar mounted on a single gun carriage.



He will not leave the battle soon. The modern destroyer is ready to fight to the last living sailor. It has 70 sets of “Stingers” on board (if it seems funny to someone, compare the capabilities of MANPADS with the characteristics of RIM-116 or “Dagger”).

Autonomous "Falanx". Automatic “Bushmasters” with manual hover. Finally, “independent combat modules” can separate from the damaged destroyer - two helicopters capable of searching for submarines and firing at surface targets with “Hellfire” and “Penguins”.



The touching moment was the acquaintance with the “rational” booking scheme proposed by the regular participant in the discussion with the nickname Alex_59. He did not lose his head and calculated local protection for the modern destroyer of the type “Burke”. From the calculation - 10% standard displacement, 788 tons of armor steel.

What happened in the illustration:



It would seem all obvious: 788 tons spent in the void. “Protection” turned out in the form of small “patches”, not capable of covering even a quarter of the board space. However, the following became clear: in the 3D space, each of the rectangles is a parallelepiped. Simply - a box without a bottom, with the thickness of the side walls 62 mm.

As a result, it turned out the whole seven separate strongholds. Are you seriously?

For example, why divide two engine rooms (each with its own internal traversing bulkhead), if you can simply combine them into a single protected compartment. And the weight of the internal traversing bulkheads to spend on the protection of the gap between the compartments (so that nothing flew there).

The same goes for defense protection, art. cellar and combat information center. I'm not talking about booking the bedding of “Falanx”, in which there is no meaning at all.



Why fuss numerous 60-mm crossbeams and citadels, if these 800 tons can be spent on solid 60-mm side protection (length of the citadel 100 m, height of the belt 8 m) and two crossheads, closing the citadel.

Otherwise, we arrive at a paradoxical conclusion. Only 700-800 tons (10% of the standard displacement of a modern destroyer) is enough to ensure complete protection of both sides, from the KVL to the upper deck. With the thickness of armor plates 60 mm, which is quite enough to prevent penetration into the hull of any NATO anti-ship missiles (“Outot”, “Harpoon”, “Exocet”) and protect the ship from debris of the downed “Brahmos”.

And how does all this fit in with the conclusions of the same author?

Any attempt to tighten the armor on these volumes leads to such refinement of the reservation that it turns into a foil.


Try nibbling 60-mm “foil” of Krupp cemented steel. With Brinell hardness over 250 units. To make it clearer to you: on the same scale, the wood has a hardness of 1-2 units, a copper coin - 35. Approximately the same ratio have their strength limits.

What is the citadel for? Seafarers have something to protect, except for BIC, UVP and two MO. Offhand:

- sailor's cabs and officer cabins of personnel;
- pumps and compressors;
- posts struggle for survivability;
- cellar aviation weapons (40 small-sized torpedoes, aircraft anti-ship missiles "Penguin" and UR "Hellfire", blocks of NURSs and other aircraft weapons);
- mentioned UVP, power plant mechanisms and turbines;
- three power plants with switchboards and transformers;
- air ducts, electrical cables and data exchange lines between destroyer posts ...

There is another unaccounted point. In addition to 130 tons of Kevlar anti-shatter protection, starting with the destroyer Mahane, the Yankees install five additional 1 inch armored bulkheads (25 mm) in the hull. The lids of the UVP starting cells are also protected from 25-mm plates.

Now look, what an interesting trick. How many hundreds of tons will be able to save, if you include armor plates in the power body kit?

With regard to the eternal questions of horizontal protection and the possibility of performing a “roller coaster” with a subsequent blow to the deck, did anyone say that the deck always has worse protection than the boards?



To do this, it is enough to provide a side cover, which will automatically reduce the deck area. And just re-design the ship. By the way, the “slide” maneuver itself is not sugar either, its implementation is possible only at subsonic speeds.

Examples with “Atlanta” and “Arly Burke” are initially incorrect. The creators of these ships did not expect to establish constructive protection, and all attempts to calculate armor have no meaning. For this, I repeat, you need a new ship. With a different layout (similar to the one in the figure), another extension of the hull and a completely rebuilt superstructure.

As for the dispute about the percentage ratio of armor protection in articles of the load of the ship, it is also not worth the candle. All examples with “Tashkent”, “Yubari”, etc. are incorrect. Because the load clauses are a variable function. And it depends on the priorities of the designers.

The French cruisers “Dupuis de Lom” and “Admiral Charnay”, with a displacement of 4700 and 6700 tons, carried 1,5 tons of armor (21% and 25%, respectively). Regarding the volume to accommodate the electronics - show the modern frigate with three steam engines, armored KDP, towers (with 200-mm protection) and crew 500 + people.
Author:
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez 23 March 2016 06: 28
    +11
    With the thickness of the armor plates 60 mm: which is enough to prevent the penetration into the hull of any anti-ship missiles of the NATO countries (Otomat, Harpoon, Exocet) and protect the ship from the wreckage of the downed Bramos.


    Logical error. Why protect against harpoons, even if the brahmos does not fly? If the bulette is shot down by a supersonic rocket, then subsonic will be destroyed with a higher probability. Accordingly, if a harpoon arrives, then a heavy supersonic will hit the target.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 23 March 2016 07: 28
      +5
      And you didn’t take into account that the fragments of a downed rocket continue to move towards the target for some more time, because in the USA there were cases of ships being hit by fragments of a target imitator, and there will be more than one missile in a battle, and there is no explosive in the target simulator, and if a rocket hit by a phalanx detonates next to the ship? Few fragments will arrive so there will be a high-impact.
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 23 March 2016 07: 37
        +4
        I did not understand you. Do you think booking is necessary to protect against splinters? Or from training missiles with an inert warhead? I pointed out a mistake in the logic, no more.
        1. Waltasar
          Waltasar 23 March 2016 07: 47
          +6
          I think there is no mistake. There will be more harpoons in the salvo than brahmos, so the likelihood of overloading air defense and single hits will also be greater.
          As I understand it, articles on booking rolled down to booking from accidental death (fragments of a downed large RCC, or a single hit of a harpoon), but how beautiful it began, we will book everything around as a battleship and we will be invincible :)
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 23 March 2016 08: 00
            0
            Quote: Waltasar
            I think there is no mistake. There will be more harpoons in the salvo than brahmos, so the likelihood of overloading air defense and single hits will also be greater.

            With this approach, I agree. Indeed, if you overload the air defense systems with quantity, then it is likely that the target will be defeated. The question is how many harpoons or uranium are needed for the air defense to fail. I remember that the BC apl with granites was calculated from the calculation of an air defense failure on an 18-20 missile. From here the necessary ammunition was withdrawn. Here you need to look comprehensively.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 23 March 2016 08: 05
              +1
              The air defense capabilities of the entire AUG were calculated. We do not have a single one. A single frigate corvette and a couple of anti-ship missiles may be enough
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 23 March 2016 08: 12
                +1
                Quote: Tlauicol
                The air defense capabilities of the whole AUG were calculated

                Sorry, did not write that for the Aug, with a priority target-aircraft carrier class "nimitz". And the main means of air defense for those augs was the f14 fighter with phoenix missiles, naturally in combination with drlo e2 hockey planes. Now, naturally, the situation has changed. And something tells - not in our favor.
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 24 March 2016 20: 02
              +1
              Quote: DrVintorez
              Do you think booking is necessary to protect against splinters

              This is one of the most logical arguments for - no armor will be able to stop the heavy PRK from getting in, but getting stolen holes from its fragments is simply stupid.
              Quote: DrVintorez
              if you overload the air defense system with quantity, then it is likely

              And it always has been. Armadillos and battleships could well be drowned without missiles or aircraft, but the armor made them invulnerable to small and medium caliber artillery.
          2. Santa Fe
            23 March 2016 08: 18
            -6
            Quote: Waltasar
            but how beautiful it began, we will book everything around as a battleship and we will be invincible :)

            Can you find an article calling for building battleships these days?
            1. Waltasar
              Waltasar 23 March 2016 10: 52
              +2
              http://topwar.ru/90751-nelzya-bronirovat-sovremennyy-korabl.html
              1. Santa Fe
                24 March 2016 07: 12
                -1
                Quote: Waltasar
                http://topwar.ru/90751-nelzya-bronirovat-sovremennyy-korabl.html

                And where is there about the battleship
          3. brn521
            brn521 23 March 2016 10: 37
            0
            Quote: Waltasar
            As I understand it, articles on booking rolled down to the reservation from accidental death (fragments of a downed large RCC, or a single hit of a harpoon)

            One of the long-standing branches of the development of the topic. And one of the main arguments of Oleg Kaptsov. So they didn’t roll down, but constantly went somewhere around.
      2. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 23 March 2016 08: 24
        +2
        And so that there is no ambiguity, I am categorically for the anti-splinter "lining" of Kevlar, for example, but no more, it can seriously help in some situations. However, I believe that the best protection against being hit by an anti-ship missile / projectile / torpedo would be either to defeat the carrier before launching / firing, or to destroy the missile / projectile / torpedo. At the moment, any armor breaks through, but in principle it has always been so. The only battle in which the armor was 100% defeated was the battle of "monitor" and "merrimark" in America during the Revolutionary War. Unless I'm confusing anything, of course.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 23 March 2016 10: 09
          +1
          Quote: DrVintorez
          And so that there is no ambiguity, I am categorically for the anti-splinter "lining"

          The "podboy" task is somewhat different. It is designed to prevent secondary debris.

          You are talking, as I understand it, more about easy booking.
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 23 March 2016 10: 26
            +1
            That's why I took the lining in quotation marks. The task is to reduce the likelihood of being hit by secondary shards and any random garbage such as fragments of a downed anti-ship missile, or shelling a crazy pirate with ak.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 23 March 2016 10: 56
              +1
              In short, light armor.

              In addition, do not forget that the ship has fewer problems with electricity compared to armored vehicles 8)))
              And therefore, it is possible to use electrothermochemical and electrodynamic methods of protection, the use of throwing plates with electromagnetic start ...

              There is no need for an extensive build-up of armor thickness.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Hog
      Hog 23 March 2016 23: 20
      0
      The problem is that there will be more subsonic in a salvo 5-6 times.
    4. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 24 March 2016 03: 50
      +1
      Quote: DrVintorez
      With the thickness of the armor plates 60 mm: which is enough to prevent the penetration into the hull of any anti-ship missiles of the NATO countries (Otomat, Harpoon, Exocet) and protect the ship from the wreckage of the downed Bramos.

      And what about anti-ship missiles with high-explosive cumulative (cumulative-high-explosive) "warheads"?
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 24 March 2016 05: 20
        0
        What you are quoting is a quote from an article. I just didn’t select it; it’s not very convenient
    5. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 24 March 2016 03: 55
      +1
      Quote: DrVintorez
      If the bulette is shot down by a supersonic rocket, then subsonic will be destroyed with a higher probability.

      The tests confirmed the probability of hitting a sea target with a semi-armor-piercing warhead (thick-walled hull) even after the destruction of the anti-ship missile "glider" by the ship's air defense ...
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 24 March 2016 05: 22
        +1
        Here the question is the distance of defeat. If you shoot down a rocket (with a large mass) 10 meters from the side, then it is clear that it will reach the target. And if in a kilometer - then the chance is much less.
  2. dokusib
    dokusib 23 March 2016 06: 49
    +6
    Here Alex somehow convincingly sets out with diagrams, calculations and evaluates the problem as a whole. Because the articles and the whole cycle. Against this background, your article with two photos, one of which of course Zamvolt, looks sorry excuse me otrebryvaniyu.
    1. le-s-ha
      le-s-ha 23 March 2016 07: 30
      +6
      Comparing Alex with Kaptsov, one must understand that the first in his publications gives an analysis of the problem, which is not biased and professional enough, then the second author, with the aim of his articles, tries to prove theories he invented. Arms do not stand still, both the weapon itself and the methods of its use are constantly being improved, perhaps over time, Kaptsov’s theory will deserve attention not only as thoughts on an alternative story
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 23 March 2016 08: 02
        +2
        Sorry, Alex and professionalism are different concepts. All of his data is taken from open sources (which are often incorrect), and he is very far from the fleet. By the way, what Kaptsov offers was, in principle, realized when building 1143 ships that had armored belt up to 50 mm thick.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 23 March 2016 10: 36
          +5
          Quote: Dimon19661
          Sorry, but Alex

          It seemed to me that Alex and Oleg in their articles talk a little about different things.
          In a series of articles, Alex tried to show how missile weapons supplanted reservations from ships, only the name of this series was somewhat inappropriate.
          Oleg is trying to show that at this time, with the development of technology and a decrease in the volume of weapons systems, a change in the layout of the ship, it makes sense to partially book.
      2. Maegrom
        Maegrom 23 March 2016 08: 13
        +6
        In the case of the implementation of certain aspects of Oleg's theory, this will not be the merit of the elaboration of theories, as sometimes happens, but the natural course of things. Since the "theories" themselves, in contrast to the truly scientific, do not have either a theoretical basis or harmonious logical constructions. Theses taken as axioms are more than dubious. The author does not perceive criticism from the word "absolutely", religiously believing in the accepted axioms and the infallibility of the logical connections used.
  3. qwert
    qwert 23 March 2016 06: 54
    +3
    Try to gnaw 60 mm “foil” from Krupp's cemented steel. With Brinell hardness over 250 units. To make it clearer: on the same scale, wood has a hardness of 1-2 units, a copper coin - 35. About the same ratio have their tensile strengths.
    Well, it's like on the T-34, only without a rational tilt. Those. 100 mm projectile without bells and whistles will make its way from 5 km. A Uranus / Harpoon type anti-ship missile is also without any problems. If without prior penetration, then a high-explosive warhead explosion is accurate. Still, 60mm for the ship is foil. No wonder there always booking was much larger. on normal cruisers from 100 mm or more
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 23 March 2016 08: 07
      +1
      And who will let you go for 5 km now? The artillery on the ship serves to:
      1. The defeat of air targets
      2.Support landing
      3. Destruction of floating mines, boats, small craft.

      The time of artillery duels is long gone.
    2. Aaleks1974
      Aaleks1974 23 March 2016 08: 11
      +6
      Try to gnaw a 60-mm “foil” from Krupp's cemented steel. With Brinell hardness over 250 units.

      Actually, 250NV, this is quite small, for a cemented surface, especially armored steel, the usual 20-ka after cementation can have 50-60HRC, which equals 500-600NV. Can I reconsider the number?
      1. Santa Fe
        23 March 2016 08: 39
        -9
        Quote: Aaleks1974
        Actually, 250NV, it's pretty small

        Well, punch it with your palm
        Quote: Aaleks1974
        Can I reconsider the number?

        Normal 20-k with all the desire can not have 500-600 HB
        only tool steels have such values
        1. le-s-ha
          le-s-ha 23 March 2016 10: 10
          +5
          Oleg read posts if you plan to write an answer, after cementing 20k and 64HRC it seems to be without problems, and 250HB can have 40x in the delivery state, i.e. without thermo and other treatments, this is very small, as you wrote above 50-60HRC closer to true
          1. Santa Fe
            23 March 2016 10: 28
            -3
            Quote: le-s-ha
            after cementing, 20 and 64HRC seem to have no problems, and 250HB can have 40x in the delivery state, i.e. without thermo and other treatments, this is very small, as you wrote above 50-60HRC closer to true

            Lesha, most likely, is the problem of converting various scales. I'm not a material scientist

            All that is important for me to know - the hardness of class B ship’s armor (spacel tritment steel, STS) was 240 on the HBW scale
            Class A armor was even higher
            600 + HBW are tool steels
            1. le-s-ha
              le-s-ha 23 March 2016 10: 37
              0
              Not familiar with the steels and technologies used in the reservation, but if the Krupp cemented armor is meant, then perhaps 250HB implies in this case a non-cemented layer
    3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Alex_59
    Alex_59 23 March 2016 06: 56
    +24
    Auto RU. I do not intend to take any further part in this butt. You are scribbling articles at the speed characteristic of a completely free person who does not have a family or children and apparently no other hobbies except boats. I wrote what I wrote, you can find fault indefinitely, mistakes are a natural consequence of human nature. The material that I laid out, I prepared for more than a month, in fits and starts in my spare minutes, I tried not to make an early product, but a thorough study. Whether or not this material is up to you to decide is up to you.
    Yours! smile
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 23 March 2016 07: 02
      +7
      I wouldn’t make excuses wink People are different, each with its own bziki.
      Kaptsov, with his narcissism and narcissism, can no longer be redone, because he will continue to seek his truth in all holes, and you wrote an excellent series of articles. hi
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 23 March 2016 07: 30
      +3
      It was in vain to be interested in observing this santabarbara, and your articles were interesting.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 23 March 2016 07: 40
        +12
        Quote: cth; fyn
        It was in vain to be interested in observing this santabarbara, and your articles were interesting.

        There will be time and thoughts - I’ll write a che-thread, but not about armor, I closed this topic for myself, put all the dots over i.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 March 2016 08: 10
          +11
          And very well placed! Thanks for the great loop! hi
        2. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 23 March 2016 10: 01
          +1
          We will wait and read with pleasure.
    3. Santa Fe
      23 March 2016 08: 08
      -8
      This is standard practice if there is nothing to object to. the question is the transition to personality

      Quote: Alex_59
      apparently no other hobbies except boats.

      Yes, I have the opportunity to do what I love.
      That made it possible to accumulate a lot of material and draw conclusions based on it. And not "in snatches in free moments"

      What kind of "thorough research" could we talk about if you are not familiar with the structure of the ship, even in general terms. And, in principle, not interested in the results of attacks and the assessment of combat damage in naval battles. But they did not hesitate to indicate in the heading "all aspects of the problem"


      Imprint of a kamikaze on the armored belt of the cruiser HMS Sussex


      Criticism is not associated with errors, but with a general misunderstanding of what you began to write about.

      Quality material or not is up to knowledge. And readers, they are different. Many people still believe in jamming "Cook" by the Khibiny and with a clever look argue that kin. energy velocity is the second derivative. But this does not mean that you need to immediately agree with them. People should learn something new and learn by comparing facts, draw the right conclusions. This is precisely the purpose of the media, which is the Military Review

      Yours! hi
      1. 27091965
        27091965 23 March 2016 09: 05
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        People should learn something new and learn by comparing the facts, draw the right conclusions.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Why fuss numerous 60-mm crossbeams and citadels, if these 800 tons can be spent on solid 60-mm side protection (length of the citadel 100 m, height of the belt 8 m) and two crossheads, closing the citadel.


        ". In the mid-50s, after rockets fired on the armored compartments of the unfinished heavy cruiser, pr. 82 "Stalingrad", it was decided that no armor would "hold" the missile. Reservation of surface ships was deemed inappropriate.Later, naval scientists formed the concept of a local protection scheme, the essence of which was to provide constructive protection for those explosive areas of the NK, the explosion of which would inevitably lead to its death. This protection scheme came to be called "local", in contrast to the "citadel" protection used on battleships, aircraft carriers and artillery cruisers of the past.
        Naturally, the constructive protection of these premises was not of an absolute nature, but was designed for well-defined ammunition. Later it became clear that in a nuclear war, constructive protection would be useful. Therefore, at the last AVK (11434, 11435) and the Kyrgyz Republic (1144), constructive protection was introduced in an expanded volume. . In the manufacture of protective barriers of surface structural protection, reinforced plastics were used. Note that for AVK it was necessary to again master the methods of designing and manufacturing underwater structural protection. ” 1996 year


        From the above it is seen how the views on the use of reservations have changed. There are many more examples. It will be used, just the booking will not return, in the concept of the cruisers of the Second World War.
        In addition, I do not think that project 1164 cruisers suddenly took and abandoned constructive protection.
      2. aiw
        aiw 23 March 2016 09: 18
        +12
        Oleg, Oleg ... All your reasoning looks like "since almost everyone uses subsonic anti-ship missiles with relatively light high-explosive warheads, let's make a reservation from them and everything will be fine!"

        You completely ignore the fact that NATO uses such anti-ship missiles because for other anti-ship missiles they have no goals. Aleksey chewed it in great detail ... Modifying RCC is much easier than building a new ship. In particular, it is quite possible in the existing dimensions of the same harpoon to stick an accelerator and an armor-piercing head onto the warhead - armor 60mm from this thing will not save.

        Further according to your article (leaving behind the scenes attacks in the style of "You are all 3.14, I am deArtagnan in a white coat" - reading this style is frankly unpleasant, especially since in a discussion you usually demonstrate a rare stubbornness and incompetence):

        1) What will happen if the anti-ship missile does enter the citadel? The destruction inside will be more significant than the destruction of a similar unarmored volume, the walls of the citadel will not allow the blast wave to go outside and it will crumble everything inside. In this sense, local booking gives much greater stability from armor-piercing warheads. The times when the ship taught dozens of shells, and most importantly, to maintain buoyancy have already passed.

        2)
        > As for the eternal questions about horizontal protection and the possibility of performing a "slide" followed by a blow to the deck, did anyone say that the deck always has worse protection than the sides? ...

        As a rule, the deck has a larger area than the sides, this follows directly from the characteristic dimensions of the ship. Of course, you can try to give the surface of the semicircle in cross-section, and say that these are all sides, but the gain in area will be only 25%, and still you have to book this entire area.

        > By the way, the "gorka" maneuver in itself is also not sugar, its implementation is possible only at subsonic speeds.

        Oleg, instead of fiercely kleyemit opponents you would rather learn physics. However, I already advised you this, but you don’t want to learn, but want to stigmatize ...

        So, we take the RCC at a speed of 500m / s at the target, capable of maneuvering with acceleration a = 30g = 300m / s. Moreover, the radius of curvature of the trajectory is R = v ^ 2 / a = 800m. This means (remember school geometry) that in order to come to the deck at an angle of 90 degrees, the RCC should begin a maneuver about 2 km to the target. To come to the deck at an angle of 45 degrees, the RCC must begin a maneuver about 1 km to the target. It is feasible.

        At the same time, you completely forget that the anti-ship missiles can dive under the bottom and demolish the rifle group, or they can attack the aircraft under the armored belt - you don’t have to talk about the serious anti-tank missile in the displacement of modern destroyers.

        I do not expect a constructive discussion with you - you seem to be incapable of that. But, as you yourself wrote, "In the" Fleet "section, a number of articles have been published that inspire certain fears for the immature minds of the younger generation." - Your article is from this cycle. Here I completely agree with you ...
        1. aiw
          aiw 23 March 2016 09: 36
          0
          > a = 30g = 300m / s.

          a = 30g = 300m / s ^ 2 ec. Slip of the pen.
      3. spravochnik
        spravochnik 23 March 2016 10: 40
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is standard practice if there is nothing to object to. the question is the transition to personality

        You and those. question - two things are completely incompatible.
        Sincerely. hi
      4. spravochnik
        spravochnik 23 March 2016 10: 47
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        What kind of "thorough research" could we talk about if you are not familiar with the structure of the ship, even in general terms .:


        Judging by your further comments, you too.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        People should learn something new and learn by comparing the facts, draw the right conclusions.

        But this is correct, but this is not about you, you are our lamp.
      5. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 23 March 2016 21: 28
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        People should learn something new and learn by comparing the facts, draw the right conclusions. This is precisely the purpose of the media, which is Military Review

        Yours!

        That's right. And they set seven minuses to see out of envy for:
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yes, I have the opportunity to do what I love.
    4. Belimbai
      Belimbai 23 March 2016 09: 30
      0
      Or maybe Kaptsov has a call sign ... for example "Trianon". Yesterday he obviously hunted for "over-the-horizon" radars. bully
    5. Belimbai
      Belimbai 23 March 2016 09: 30
      0
      Or maybe Kaptsov has a call sign ... for example "Trianon". Yesterday he obviously hunted for "over-the-horizon" radars. bully
  5. fransys.drake
    fransys.drake 23 March 2016 07: 14
    +1
    Let's shell the submarines with armored plates, this will protect them from deep bombs, as well as enemy torpedoes.
  6. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 23 March 2016 07: 21
    0
    If it weren’t for the last paragraph, it would finally be a beauty, but alas, the last paragraph is like a lemon among fruits.
  7. Wedmak
    Wedmak 23 March 2016 07: 50
    +5
    Oleg, your articles are unproven. Many logical non-docking. A series of articles by Alex_59 showed more clearly the futility of armor on modern ships. It’s better to invest in interception and strike systems. Not that they say that armor is not needed, it just is not economically viable. Critical systems can be duplicated, carried below the waterline, surrounded by ballistic armor.
    But each ship has its own torpedo, that's true. No one will attack Arliberk with a subsonic missile, especially one. And even more so, no one will attack AUG with dozens of supersonic anti-ship missiles. For such tasks, an outfit of forces is allocated that makes it possible to fulfill a specific task with high probability. In most cases, this will be a complex attack from air, water and from under water. To oversaturate the protection systems with targets, to put them in an uncomfortable position, to drown out and deceive the radars. Then disable the weapons and communications. That’s enough. The ship is not operational. How can armor help here? No way.

    And your 60 mm is really foil for modern missiles. Including subsonic harpoons and more. Or do you think piercing High-explosive fragmentation warhead WDU-18 / B weighing 221 kg and length 0,9 m. At a speed of 850 km / h will not penetrate 60 mm armor?
    1. Santa Fe
      23 March 2016 08: 55
      -5
      Quote: Wedmak
      Oleg, your articles are unproven.

      yes you just got insolent
      Quote: Wedmak
      do you think the penetrating high-explosive fragmentation warhead WDU-18 / B weighing 221 kg and 0,9 m long will not penetrate 850 mm armor at a speed of 60 km / h?

      Of course not

      Armor-piercing with a ballistic tip AP Mark 21
      length 914 mm, weight 152 kg
      Coef. filling xnumx percent - 2,3 kg (Explosive D).
      98,5% of the projectile is solid metal.
      Initial speed 762 m / s

      At a distance of 16 kilometers could pierce only 51 mm deck
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 23 March 2016 09: 20
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        At a distance of 16 kilometers could pierce only 51 mm deck

        Speed ​​at the end of the trajectory?
        1. Santa Fe
          23 March 2016 09: 22
          -4
          Quote: DrVintorez
          Speed ​​at the end of the trajectory?

          16 km is not the end of the trajectory

          firing range from this gun reached 30 000 yards (27 km)
          1. aiw
            aiw 23 March 2016 09: 28
            +3
            I cried ... it means that the angle of incidence was not more than 30 degrees (from horizontal). You brought a picture above, from which it follows that this is a clean rebound.
            1. Santa Fe
              23 March 2016 09: 42
              -6
              Quote: aiw
              You brought a picture above, from which it follows that this is a clean rebound.

              You probably know the rule that a rebound occurs when the armor and projectile caliber are equal

              in other cases, it occurs rarely, only with
              a) insignificant fur. rocket strength (this is just our case)
              b) very large angles between the projectile and the armor

              So yes, plastic Harpoon at an angle of incidence of 30 deg. guaranteed to ricochet
              Quote: aiw
              . this means that the angle of incidence was not more than 30 degrees (from horizontal)

              Do you think that when meeting with a littered board it will be more?))
              and who said that the trajectory of the rocket will be strictly perpendicular to the board
              era of linear art. fights ended long ago

              Glamorgan - tangent strike from the stern
              clearly visible footprint on the deck
              1. aiw
                aiw 23 March 2016 09: 48
                +2
                > You probably know the rule that ricochet occurs when armor and caliber are equal

                You yourself contradict your little picture.

                EMNIP Britons at the beginning of the 20th century established that armor effectively protects against shells of 1 / 2-1 caliber. We take the penetrating warhead from the anti-ship missiles ... oops, it turns out that 60mm is not enough, you need 100-200mm.

                > do you think that when you meet a heaped side, it will be bigger?))

                I think that you can fill the board by no more than 30 degrees. According to your picture, this is an unambiguous check for breaking through.

                > Glamorgan - tangential blow, stern
                clearly visible footprint on the deck

                How many years have passed since the change of guidance systems of anti-ship missiles? You would still remember Hood and Jutland ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  23 March 2016 10: 03
                  -4
                  Quote: aiw
                  You yourself contradict your little picture.

                  re-read my comment again
                  Quote: aiw
                  EMNIP Britons at the beginning of the 20 century found that armor effectively protects against shells in the 1 / 2-1 caliber. We take penetrating warhead from RCC

                  and how much she will have a coefficient. filling
                  Quote: aiw
                  I think that you can fill the board no more than at 30 degrees.

                  and this is only in one plane!
                  Quote: aiw
                  How many years have passed since the change of guidance systems of anti-ship missiles?

                  they have nothing to do with it

                  at what angle the rocket will fly - nobody knows. all options are equally likely
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 23 March 2016 10: 18
                    +2
                    > read my comment again

                    Re-read - still contradict.

                    > and how much it will have odds. filling

                    But untree armored citadels are many and not necessary. In addition, I wrote to you that armor-piercing warheads of anti-ship missiles can have a much higher degree of filling than an armor-piercing projectile, since they do not experience such overloads in the barrel. But this fact does not fit into your concept of the universe, and you ignore it.

                    > and this is only in one plane!

                    The obstruction of the sides in the longitudinal plane ... the ship when viewed from above will look like churchkhella or something belay ?

                    > they have nothing to do with it. at what angle the rocket will arrive - nobody knows. all options are equally likely

                    Well, yes, the RCC has no idea how it is oriented relative to the ship. Oleg, better limit yourself to the history of the fleet, seriously. This is the area where you really get interesting articles. But as soon as you start writing about modern technology - you get such nonsense ...
                    1. Santa Fe
                      23 March 2016 10: 35
                      -4
                      Quote: aiw
                      Re-read - still contradict.

                      where exactly
                      Quote: aiw
                      a much greater degree of filling than an armor-piercing projectile, since they do not experience such overloads in the barrel

                      Do you seriously believe that it is all about overloads during the shot ??)))

                      specific design of an armor-piercing projectile for a single task - penetration of armor

                      and the types of shells are different, including thin-walled OF
                      Quote: aiw
                      Well, yes, the RCC has no idea how it is oriented relative to the ship.

                      Of course not, why know her
                      the ship can maneuver as you like
                      1. aiw
                        aiw 23 March 2016 10: 49
                        0
                        > where exactly

                        Look carefully at your picture.

                        > Do you seriously think that the whole point is precisely in the overloads during the shot ??)))

                        To break through the armor you need a strong tip. A durable headpiece weighs a lot, and powder gases - this is bad luck - put pressure on the bottom of the projectile, i.e. need walls capable of transmitting the stress to the top when fired. If we refuse the tip - the density of explosives is 3-4 times less than that of steel - the load on the walls decreases - you can make the walls thinner.

                        Take it yourself and calculate the acceleration during the shot and the stress in the walls of the projectile, and then compare it with the yield strength.

                        > Of course not, why should she know that
                        the ship can maneuver as you like

                        To hit the vital part of the ship at an optimal angle. Your K.O. hi
                      2. The comment was deleted.
      2. aiw
        aiw 23 March 2016 09: 25
        +3
        > At a distance of 16 kilometers, it could only pierce a 51 mm deck

        The speed of the target and the angle of incidence? Otherwise blah blah blah.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 March 2016 09: 26
          -5
          Quote: aiw
          Target Speed

          supersonic
          Quote: aiw
          angle of incidence?

          degrees 60 from normal
          1. aiw
            aiw 23 March 2016 09: 30
            +2
            > 60 degrees from normal

            Here I am about the same. According to your picture, this is a guaranteed rebound.
          2. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 23 March 2016 09: 42
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            supersonic

            What is the speed of the projectile at the moment of contact with the armor barrier? "supersonic" is not an answer, it is the same as saying "a lot". Name the number. Well, you were rightly asked about the angle of the meeting with the armor.
            1. Santa Fe
              23 March 2016 09: 54
              +1
              Quote: DrVintorez
              Name the number.

              Why don't you search it online?

              I already gave the full characteristics of the armor-piercing Mark-21 ship eight-eight times of WWII. Up to odds. filling and armor penetration distance 16 km

              You are just words and complaints about the lack of parameters, as if something will change

              ps / there, without long calculations, it is clear that the shell in the middle of the trajectory maintained supersonic speed. How else would he have flown another 11 kilometers
              1. aiw
                aiw 23 March 2016 10: 06
                +6
                > there, without lengthy calculations, it is clear that the projectile in the middle of the trajectory kept supersonic speed. How else would he fly another 11 kilometers

                Oleg, I suspected that physics passed you, but did not even guess at what distance ... belay
                1. RuslanD36
                  RuslanD36 April 27 2016 17: 58
                  0
                  Betab-500shp beats 550mm of armor. This is quite enough, it seems to me. What prevents the same PCR from doing?
              2. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 23 March 2016 10: 06
                +5
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                Why don't you search it online?

                To me? It is your job to provide evidence. And there is no faith in your epithets: I perfectly remember "a pair of wheeled chassis of the air defense missile system s300" and the number of carriers of supersonic missiles that "can be counted on one hand."
                1. Santa Fe
                  23 March 2016 10: 20
                  -4
                  Quote: DrVintorez
                  : I remember very well "a pair of wheeled chassis zrk s300"

                  And what's wrong there
                  command post and radar located on a mobile chassis
                  Quote: DrVintorez
                  and the number of carriers of supersonic missiles that "can be counted on one hand."

                  in fact, it is
                  1. DrVintorez
                    DrVintorez 24 March 2016 18: 30
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    in fact, it is

                    Here are your words: "As a result, the number of carriers of supersonic anti-ship missiles can be counted on the fingers of one hand." taken from here: http://topwar.ru/91369-raketa-cirkon-bitva-za-giperzvuk.html
                    here is my answer:
                    Quote: DrVintorez
                    Granite: 8 anteev, 1 eagle, 1 project 1143.5
                    Mosquito: 7 projects 956, 1 project 1155.1, 2 projects 1239, 21 projects 1241 (2) 1
                    Volcano: 3 projects 1164. Yes, some of the ships are under repair, but somehow there aren’t enough fingers at all!


                    By the way, I still don’t know which biological species has so many fingers on her hand.


                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    And what's wrong there
                    command post and radar located on a mobile chassis


                    what will you shoot? what? or is it important for you to look?
                    add support machines, add low altitude. by the way! Usually on a PU SAM with a c300 4 missiles. there is an exception for c300v with heavy missiles - there are two of them. not enough pairs for you chassis?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      25 March 2016 07: 56
                      -4
                      Quote: DrVintorez
                      Granite: 8 anteev, 1 eagle, 1 project 1143.5

                      On Kuznetsovo mines dismantled
                      Quote: DrVintorez
                      what will you shoot?

                      64 missile silos installed in the bow of the ship

                      we are talking about the command post equipment. Together with the radar, it is placed on two mobile chassis
                      1. DrVintorez
                        DrVintorez 26 March 2016 13: 49
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        we are talking about the command post equipment. Together with the radar, it is placed on two mobile chassis

                        I do not know who these "WE" are, but if you are only talking about the KP equipment, then I can congratulate you: you have just signed your complete incompetence. go well, at least on Wikipedia! how can an air defense system be considered without a launcher? what is this air defense system where only the command post? if it goes on like this, then you will begin to consider only the warhead of the anti-aircraft missile!
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        64 missile silos installed in the bow of the ship

                        which ship?
                2. Hog
                  Hog 23 March 2016 23: 38
                  0
                  The essence of the dimensions of the complex and its ammunition.
                  1. DrVintorez
                    DrVintorez 24 March 2016 18: 34
                    0
                    and if we add to this how the complex (ground) is located relative to its components, then the picture is sad. ground-based air defense systems occupy a large area - so that one bomb / missile / projectile is not covered.
      3. Wedmak
        Wedmak 23 March 2016 09: 56
        +3
        yes you just got insolent

        I? Why else? You did not give a single calculation, not a single fact proving that armor like the battleships of 2 of the world is needed. Neither militarily nor economically feasible. And then I got impudent?
        At a distance of 16 kilometers could pierce only 51 mm deck

        Actually, they have already asked below, but still.
        The distance and initial speed for missiles does not matter. It matters only the speed in the final section and the angle of the meeting with the armor. Nevertheless, the 51 mm projectile could penetrate, why a missile with a warhead of greater mass cannot penetrate the 60? And if the second rocket flies there, in the weakened zone?
        Further: a high-explosive fragmentation warhead, that is, even full penetration is not necessary. It will damage external devices, weaken the board, cause a fire - quite a decent damage to itself.
        In addition, do not forget that the rocket, unlike a projectile, is guided and can selectively hit weakened elements of the ship.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal April 4 2017 09: 53
          0
          Add my "5 cents".
          Figuratively, the meaning of the argument is as follows: one person proposes to put stormtrooper soldiers in exoskeletons with almost comprehensive protection against small calibers (without loss of mobility), the other objects that they would shoot exclusively from .50 'or RPG (or aim at the sole of the boot, and suddenly another 5 light bullets hit one point). And therefore, it is not worth it to spend time and money on the development (inexpensive, all the technologies are) of protection and production (+ 10% of the cost of equipment and weapons).
  8. kvs207
    kvs207 23 March 2016 08: 01
    +3
    Quote: fransys.drake
    Let’s armor the submarines,

    The thickness of the solid hull of the SSBN can be envied by many surface ships))).
    1. fransys.drake
      fransys.drake 23 March 2016 08: 21
      +2
      smile Yes, I’m so, in a hurry. At VO there are most articles about Ukraine and disputes about the necessity / absence of the need to reserve ships))
    2. common man
      common man 23 March 2016 09: 14
      0
      Quote: kvs207
      The thickness of the solid hull of the SSBN can be envied by many surface ships))).

      And this is an interesting question by the way. Somehow, after all, the designers manage to shove it into the virtually armored citadel, a sturdy hull, and a power plant. and weapons. and such mass-sized electronics, and locators. And that's okay. The whole thing is probably in the original terms of reference? It is given by definition that there should be a solid case and design based on this. Ask the designer the initial condition, the presence of reinforced structural protection, say 100 mm, and he will cram everything there without any problems.
  9. igorspb
    igorspb 23 March 2016 08: 57
    +1
    I wish both authors not to calm down so that we have something to read and something to argue about ...
  10. mixdiur
    mixdiur 23 March 2016 09: 04
    0
    Quote: kvs207


    I think the thickness of the hull is_explicitly_not_only, and_not_st
    only_for_protection_from_bomb_and_torpedo, sk
    Only for durability when loading.
  11. spravochnik
    spravochnik 23 March 2016 09: 54
    +3
    Now see what an interesting trick. How many hundreds of tons can be saved if armor plates are included in the power pack of the hull?

    Armor plates NOT enable in power SET body, because the set - structural elements, such as frames, stringers, beams, etc. They can be included only in the power SCHEME corps. Here, damn it, the discovery was made. Already in World War II, many ships were so built.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 March 2016 09: 57
      -3
      Quote: spravochnik
      Armor plates CANNOT be included in the power kit of the hull, because the kit is structural elements, such as frames, stringers, beams, etc.

      It's just about replacing part of the frames with armor plates

      The Japanese were able to do this on their cruisers in the 30-s. With modern technology, this is generally a question.

      Another striking example is IL-2.
      1. aiw
        aiw 23 March 2016 10: 02
        +2
        > It's just about replacing part frames armored plates

        No comment fool
        1. Santa Fe
          23 March 2016 10: 04
          -2
          Quote: aiw
          > It's just about replacing part of the frames with armor plates
          No comment

          Tell it to the creators of Mioko and IL-2 armored capsules.
          1. aiw
            aiw 23 March 2016 10: 11
            +4
            Oleg, the creators of Mioko did not replace the frames with armor plates. The horizontal belt included in the power circuit can relieve the longitudinal set - but certainly not the transverse one. fool

            It's amazing to read such things from a person like you, positioning yourself as a fleet specialist. Better write about the history of the fleet - you can do it ... but for God's sake, do not touch the technical aspects, do not disgrace crying
          2. The comment was deleted.
            1. Santa Fe
              23 March 2016 10: 16
              -2
              Quote: aiw
              The horizontal belt included in the power circuit can relieve the longitudinal set - but certainly not the transverse one.

              You cling to words. In 1925, the creators of Mioko managed to partially include armored plates in the power pack. Rt

              How about IL-2
              The main feature is the inclusion of armor in the power circuit of an airframe. The body armor has replaced the frame and skin the entire nose and middle of the fuselage.

              Just don’t say that the last 70 years of technology stood still
              or armored plates have less strength and bearing capacity than individual narrow metal structures (which are the frames)
              1. aiw
                aiw 23 March 2016 10: 43
                +3
                > You cling to words.

                Dear Oleg, if the shapnout and the stringer are the same for you, then you are absolutely incompetent in the matter under discussion. Rt

                > How about IL-2

                "The design of the IL-2 was mixed. The armored hull of the fuselage, its front part - the engine hoods - consisted of sheets of AB-1 steel armor with a thickness of 4 mm (hoods), 5 mm (floor and sides), 7 mm (rear wall of the gunner's cabin); engine protection from above - sheet duralumin 5 mm Total armor weight - about 700 kg Docking and fastening of pieces of armor - on 5- and 6-mm steel rivets on duralumin profiles and stripes carcass."

                http://oat.mai.ru/gal_la_1/la19_30/TXT_02.html


                If you knew even a little bit of compromising material, you would not have written such rubbish - a frameless construction made of 5 mm steel cannot have the necessary strength.

                And since when did the IL-2 become a warship repeat ?
                The ratio of weights, sizes and loads in the attack aircraft and in the cruiser is significantly different, so your example is generally incorrect.
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 23 March 2016 10: 18
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        It's just about replacing part of the frames with armor plates


        Once again I repeat, you do not replace the RINGS. You once again demonstrate the exceptional superficiality of your knowledge. Do not make me laugh.
        The example of IL-2 is very unsuccessful. There is a bearing armored hull, the structural strength of which is ensured by its shape and therefore there are definitely no armored frames there.
        Here is the fact that under the numbers 1 and 2 there are frames.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 March 2016 10: 44
          -5
          Quote: spravochnik
          Once again I repeat, you do not replace the RINGS.

          very authoritative opinion
          Quote: spravochnik
          Here is the fact that under the numbers 1 and 2 there are frames.

          Do you consider it a big problem to make them shorter by replacing the top with plates and combining the power set into a single whole

          with modern welding and CAD methods in 3D

          or seriously you think that steel plates have less strength and bearing capacity than individual narrow frames. Probably fall apart under their own weight))
          1. aiw
            aiw 23 March 2016 10: 58
            +4
            > You find it a big challenge to make them shorter by replacing the top with slabs and connecting the power set into a single whole

            Oleg, read about the "moment of inertia of the section" before enlightenment. This very moment of inertia grows like cube section size. So your suggestion for a replacement frames armored plates are absolutely pointless - reducing the weight of the shieldguts will be within the limits of statistical error (if you certainly want the ship to have the necessary strength).

            Here's a longitudinal set is another matter - because ... THERE ... the armored belt has a significant HEIGHT! fellow

            Oleg, you are talking enchanting nonsense, and you are doing it so hard that the question arises not about your competence (with this, alas, everything is clear) but about your mental health ...
            1. brn521
              brn521 24 March 2016 11: 13
              +1
              So this is just about armored belts, and not about a full-fledged citadel? Well then, the savings are dubious. The belts will need additional fastening to the hull set, the mass of which will exceed the associated savings in the set of the vessel. The armored belt should not fly out of the mounts when hit by anti-ship missiles, including high-explosive ones. Otherwise, you will get mono-meter holes at the joints with the flooding of several compartments at once. Relatively narrow destroyers will tolerate this much worse than the old slow-moving and gluttonous, but at the same time stable iron-battleships.
      3. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 23 March 2016 10: 18
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Another striking example is IL-2.

        Right now it was?!?! (C) tribute to the Kaygermaz. Il2 here what place? Armor as a frame? Duck tails felled only in the way. Until they introduced the arrow, the losses were terrible. If we follow this analogy, then in the ship’s stronghold it may even survive, but it will not work out of the surviving spectators. Well they will be there as in a coffin-besh windows. And all the radio equipment will be demolished, the antenna is how to cover the armor?
  12. nazar_0753
    nazar_0753 23 March 2016 09: 56
    +7
    It seems that Kaptsov still slept after writing the article "Frigates will replace cruisers", re-read what he had written, and with horror noticed that in it he completely forgot to even mention the booking of ships. And I decided to improve laughing
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 23 March 2016 10: 12
      +2
      It seems that the current before writing this article was not very skillful (or, on the contrary, VERY ABLE), he became sober.
  13. spravochnik
    spravochnik 23 March 2016 09: 59
    +2
    Oleg, you can’t "find potential solutions to problems", by the fact that you are a layman, which you have repeatedly proven. You can only offer your thoughts.
  14. Operator
    Operator 23 March 2016 10: 03
    0
    We can congratulate the author on acknowledging his mistake in assessing the level of reservation of ships - 60 mm of additional steel, proposed for spreading on board, can easily be penetrated by anti-ship cruise missiles, whose arsenal includes cumulative warheads designed to penetrate 400 mm armor.

    One can only wish for the future that the author admitted his mistake in ignoring the main problem of the combat capability of a modern ship - 100% dependence on the work of the only multifunctional radar that cannot be covered with armor and which is defenseless against the notorious Harpoon.

    Until that moment, discuss the same theses and consider the same photos on the second, third, etc. circle does not make sense.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 23 March 2016 10: 25
      0
      Quote: Operator
      100 percent dependent on the operation of a single multi-function radar

      Money for fish again?
  15. spravochnik
    spravochnik 23 March 2016 10: 23
    +2
    Examples with “Atlant” and “Arly Burke” were initially incorrect. The creators of these ships did not expect to establish constructive protection
    Oleg, CONSTRUCTIVE PROTECTION is not only ARMOR. This is a whole set of constructive measures, and believe me, it is present at Atlanta and Arleigh Burke.
    I already wrote to you that your head does not keep pace with the desire to answer your opponent.
  16. maximghost
    maximghost 23 March 2016 10: 23
    +3
    Oleg, why do you have such a craving for rupovskl steel and why do you always bring its hardness (what does hardness have to do with the topic of discussion). And how are you going to include armor in the power pack? Welding 2 thick steel sheets is another problem. How are you going to ensure complete penetration? How will the greater stiffness and brittleness of the seam affect the operation of the structure as a whole? How much will welding thick armor plates complicate the production technology and increase the cost of ship construction?
    1. Santa Fe
      23 March 2016 10: 47
      -2
      Quote: maximghost
      to rupovskl steel and why do you always bring its hardness (what does hardness have to do with the topic of discussion).

      World famous brand of ship armor
      Quote: maximghost
      To weld xnumx thick steel sheet is still a problem

      only not in the xnumx century
      How much will welding thick armor plates complicate the production technology and increase the cost of ship construction?

      On 10%

      it is the table that stands the entire body of the modern destroyer, the rest 90 - weapons and filling
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 27 March 2016 13: 21
        +1
        World famous brand of ship armor
        --
        Oleg, doesn’t roll. Technology has gone far ahead. Now the armor is not homogeneous. And why exactly Krupp and co? Especially taking as a standard ....
  17. alstr
    alstr 23 March 2016 10: 56
    +1
    IMHO, it is necessary to separate the cutlets from the flies. First you need to determine the classes of ships. More precisely with their definitions. And then they are divided by displacement, then by purpose, then by something else.
    Now with the classes of ships the situation is the same as in BB2 with tanks.

    Then based on the classes to solve and problems - need armor or not.

    In general, in the order of delirium.
    All destroyers replace submarines. For example, take something like "Typhoon" to stuff universal launchers there plus add external detachable combat modules. And no armor is needed (armor is water).

    The striking power will be greater than the same Burke (since air defense is not necessary) and you can shove it in my mind at the place of 20 strategists of 80 calibers plus 6 TAs with 22 torpedoes / calibers.
    The plus in this is that the autonomy of the submarine.

    Those. theoretically, to build for the same AUG, instead of surface ships, special submarines that will take over the protection of the aircraft carrier or landing ships. Those. the surface ship will be 1, but its air defense will be deployed on several submarines.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 March 2016 10: 57
      +2
      Quote: alstr
      (since air defense is not necessary)

      Air defense is needed, that’s the catch

      who, if necessary, will cover the convoy and provide a no-fly zone
      or removes a satellite from orbit
      1. Panikovsky
        Panikovsky 23 March 2016 21: 10
        +1
        Uv.Oleg, your articles are always interesting, I carefully follow and see that you have counted your opponents once or twice, and you’ll debunk those in the comments, like two fingers on asphalt. Do not be nervous, ignore frank talkers and zvizdobol, do your job, you are very necessary on the site. technical articles are much more relevant here than those about LGBT and pederasts.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 23 March 2016 21: 55
          +4
          Quote: Panikovsky
          Uv.Oleg, your articles are always interesting, I carefully follow and see that you have counted your opponents once or twice, and you’ll debunk those in the comments, like two fingers on asphalt. Do not be nervous, ignore frank talkers and zvizdobol, do your job, you are very necessary on the site. technical articles are much more relevant here than those about LGBT and pederasts.

          laughing good Panikovsky, by golly, drop the bird !!!
          1. Andrey77
            Andrey77 27 March 2016 13: 23
            0
            Classic, vigorous loaf. good
      2. alstr
        alstr 28 March 2016 13: 18
        0
        So no one canceled underwater and submarine launches.
        Then I wrote about SEPARABLE combat platforms. Here it is possible to strike from them. If they are lost, then nothing is done. Moreover, communication can be done via cable (for submarines this is already a standard option for sonar and communication equipment).
        If you develop an idea, then a group of such submarines is a warrant. With one submarine, Detection / EW Platforms are released. The rest get the TS.
        Those. if you think about it, you can come up with a lot of things.

        If we talk about booking, then it should be reasonable. The fact is that as soon as we read to book the top, then by finalizing the missiles, all the booking will be nullified, because you just need to teach the rocket not to make a "slide", but to do a "dive", ie. undermine the ship. And now the question: with the same mass of warheads, which will be more destructive: an explosion in the setting (albeit an armored one) or an explosion under water at the side or even under the bottom.

        In my opinion, the answer is obvious.

        As a result, we will come to submarines for various purposes. In principle, now we do not sell only an aircraft carrier as a submarine. Moreover, if you take helicopters, then there are no problems. But the problem with the planes, because take-off and landing require, firstly, a long stay on the surface for take-off / landing, and secondly, certain modes (speed, accounting for the direction of the wind, etc.).
        Therefore, until they create an apparatus of two mediums (air - water), underwater aircraft carriers are a dream.

        There is another direction for the development of protection - this is energy shields.
        In principle, I did not express any new ideas. it’s easy enough to read fiction and from there take ideas and implement them.
        1. alstr
          alstr 28 March 2016 13: 58
          0
          Yes, I propose urgently all discussions about the reservation to be classified. laughing
          And then we will give out a terrible state secret.
  18. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 24 March 2016 10: 44
    0
    These "Opuses" about booking are no longer even funny, in modern conditions we will get a huge number of adversary anti-ship missiles, but they are weaker than ours, but at least 200 mm of armor will not save you from the quantity
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 27 March 2016 12: 53
      0
      In modern conditions, everything is much more complicated. The fight will not be 1 on 1, but crowd on crowd. And with the support of deck / coastal aviation. And most likely, the presence / absence of runways will be the decisive factor, and not the thickness of the armor of a single ship. An indirect sign is the operation of our Aerospace Forces in Syria. Whoever grabs the air has a huge advantage. Aviation will sooner or later gouge anyone, it's a matter of time. Therefore, the articles of the "supporter of armor and steel" are not clear to me.
  19. Kvazar
    Kvazar 24 March 2016 20: 40
    +2
    Oleg for thought because we are already going in the right direction of pre-replenishment +)
    1. supersonic missiles allow "diving" at a speed of 3M at an angle of 23-40 degrees (well, our modern ones in theory). That is, there are very big nuances. That if you have a straight slope of armor it gives advantages in reducing the mass of the deck armor. But it reduces the stability of the system on a small hill, that is, the warhead of the rocket will enter just under 90g. Worse still.
    2. Also, you forgot about hypersonic PRKs (yes, so far they will only be on our Orlans and submarines) there, the slide is possible only small and just on a straight slope.

    3. See the stability of modern steel armor, they are 2 times higher than fig times than the Krupp armor of the Second World War.

    4. See the tests of the aircraft carrier grafcepelin and the Sevastopol section and their armor thicknesses. Given paragraph 3, it will become clear why US aircraft carriers carry an armor belt of the thickness that they carry.

    5. A ship is not a training ground. Armor is needed in order to reduce the chance of defeat. The ship is a long sausage. The chance of shooting exactly at the 90-degree barrel is not that big.

    On the good should be the opposite! ramp. Yes, this will increase the mass of armor on the deck, but the task of armor is to minimize damage to force the enemy to put armor-piercing warheads sharply reducing the mass of explosives to 6-7% of the total warhead mass. One thing pulled 300 kg and another 30 kg. With a reverse slope, you force RCC or a direct hit, or make a small hill. Or dist. undermining the shock core during the passage. Or make a vertical slide into the deck, and this dramatically reduces the kin. impact energy.

    Yes, do not forget that in addition to sound heavy rockets we only have +)) And then every time everyone is going to OUR ships to sink OUR Granites))))
    We are waiting for the next. articles +)
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 27 March 2016 13: 03
      0
      A 1 on 1 fight is good. But this only happens in the movies. Or with the actions of a pirate raider. Fighting groups and formations of ships SUPPORTED BY AVIATION.
  20. brn521
    brn521 25 March 2016 11: 08
    0
    Quote: Dart2027
    armor made them invulnerable to artillery of small and medium caliber.

    Armor does not make invulnerable. There remain vulnerable elements that cannot be covered with armor, and which are very important in this case. Recall the same dreadnought masts. Tripods and openwork designs. They were specially built so as to withstand at least one hit of the main caliber, without collapsing at the same time, since without a mast the battleship is no longer a battleship, but meat for other battleships. About the cruiser with a smaller booking area and say nothing. At the beginning of the last century, there was even a paradox when the strength of light armored cruisers and heavy armored (with armored belts) changed depending on distance and visibility (night or fog). At a great distance, a large caliber played a role. At a short distance, the rate of fire of smaller calibers was already decided.
    The final thought is as follows. Or we book the ship slightly just in case. Or we build a heavy ship with maximum protection, like the ships of the last century. The use of intermediate options leads to questionable results, when the destroyer will be the size of a cruiser, it needs cruising base and maintenance, but it will have weapons and functions like a destroyer. The only question is, "slightly book" how much? As you can see from the above calculations, 60 mm of armor along the entire side is already too much. The displacement has almost doubled. Instead of this armor, the ship can receive more powerful means of detection and counteraction. Armor is not just a load, it is a load above the waterline. The one that ships constantly lack, and the increase of which requires many times greater displacement.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 27 March 2016 13: 15
      0
      As practice has shown, do not book - the result will be the same. Pearl Harbor by the Yankees, Midway by the Yaps. "Shefield" from the British. "Marat" is with us. Aviation decides. If the ship is weak there will be 1 sortie, if the ship is strong - 10 or 200 sorties.