A projectile fired from the barrel of an AK-630 flies 900 meters in a second, having time to complete 1260 revolutions around its axis. (900/23, 8 * 0, 03, where 23, 8 is the steepness of the grooves, measured in calibers.)
In artillery systems using the Gatling scheme, the shells are twisted not only by cutting, but also by rotating the barrel block (after each shot, a turn of 60 ° follows). At a rate of fire of 4500 … 5000 rds / min. cluster rotation reaches 800 rpm. Fiery whirlwind!
The purpose of the system is to fire at air targets on a collision course. In this case, the speed of the projectiles upon meeting the target increases by another 200 or more m / s.
Six AK-630 barrels are installed at a small angle (fractions of °) to the axis of rotation of the gun unit, providing the most advantageous dispersion when firing. When a naval anti-aircraft gun fires, individual shots are not heard. Its roar is like the roar of a jet turbine.
The complex consists of two artillery installations with fire control radar. The total rate of fire is up to 10,000 rds / min.
A cloud of submunitions on the path of an anti-ship missile
Then there are two main variants of events.
At first, high-explosive fragmentation shells were used as standard ammunition for sea anti-aircraft guns. OF-84 weighing 0, 39 kg filled with 48 grams of explosive or OFZ for a similar purpose. It was believed that such ammunition has sufficient power to disable any Western-style anti-ship missile system. Capable, when hit, cause a violation of its aerodynamic appearance, disable the missile guidance system or damage the engine. With the subsequent descent of the anti-ship missile system from the trajectory and falling into the water.
There was only one problem: the rocket that fell into the water was not going to sink. Its debris ricocheted off the surface and continued flying in the same direction. Sometimes the half-finished anti-ship missile did not even have time to collapse into the water. All this took place in the immediate vicinity of the ship (the anti-aircraft gun is the last echelon of defense), which created the risk of its destruction by anti-ship missile fragments.
Considering the thickness of the skin of modern ships, after a couple of such "successfully repelled attacks", it should be noted that they will turn into a colander.
In practice, this was extremely rare. Ships in combat conditions have never managed to shoot down anti-ship missiles using anti-aircraft guns. In half of the cases, the missiles flew unhindered to their targets. The rest were hit from an air defense system at a considerable distance from the ship.
During the naval exercises, a couple of incidents were recorded when ships caught fire from debris from targets that fell into them.
No one tried to carry out such tests in their right mind: to send a rocket with an unplugged seeker directly to a ship with a crew. In the hope that anti-aircraft weapons will 100% fulfill their task. The cost of a mistake is too great.
Firing practice is usually carried out on parallel courses or when the target is flown astern / ahead of the ship's course. To exclude the possibility of meeting with the wreckage.
These incidents were tragic accidents. The frigate "Entrim" was damaged by the Americans when hit by debris. Under similar circumstances, MRK "Monsoon" died in our country. If a couple of close explosions of the Osa-M missile defense system could not stop the target missile, how many small-caliber high-explosive shells would be required?
Only once, in the early 1990s, a show was staged overseas with the shooting of the decommissioned destroyer Stoddard. Even rats escaped from the doomed ship. Only the automatic Falanx continued to rise in the middle of the deserted deck; he was to reflect attacks from all points.
Falanx hit all targets. But when the specialists boarded the Stoddard, they saw the twisted scrap metal. All light structures bore traces of damage, and the diesel generator standing openly was demolished by an unfinished drone that had fallen into it.
The drone had a launch mass of only a few hundred kilograms. But in the west they knew about the size of the Soviet missiles!
There were fresh legends about the kamikaze, when the 40-mm shells of the "Bofors" could not knock off the course of the burning "Zeros" with already dead pilots
Kamikaze at that moment were too close to the ship. Now, in order to prevent ramming, you need to smash the planes into dust. And ordinary small-caliber assault rifles were ineffective in such conditions.
It will be the same with missiles. Time is running out. A special solution is required.
Therefore, in the composition of the ZAK "Falanx" there was an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile MK.149 with a detachable pallet and a core of depleted uranium. Not for firing at some armored rockets. The choice of the BTS was dictated by other considerations.
With the existing combination of ballistic characteristics (1100 m / s) and the design of the ammunition itself, gunsmiths had the right to count on the detonation of the anti-ship missile warhead. In other words, self-detonation of a rocket when a miniature core of a 20-mm projectile hits the body of a warhead. A thermal release of hundreds of thousands of joules will act as a detonator for the most resistant explosives.
An overly bold statement. Above was the story of the unenviable fate of the ships, where the Falanx, which stood guard over the sky, failed its missions. However, there was an explanation for this.
Naval target missiles (RM-15M "Termit-R" or BQM-74 Chukar) did not have a warhead. In the presented conditions, a target without a warhead posed almost a greater danger than a missile with standard combat equipment. She could not be destroyed from the inside.
A burst of anti-aircraft machine gun passed far and wide, but the drone ricocheted off the water and set fire to the frigate's superstructure.
In combat conditions, experts still count on a more positive result.
The development of naval weapons does not stand in one place
On the basis of a block of barrels AO-18K (complex AK-630) Russian gunsmiths created an artillery complex 3M89 "Broadsword". The AO-18KD block with a barrel length of 80 calibers (instead of 54) with higher ballistic characteristics was used as a new artillery unit. And new ammunition BPTS, which have a core of tungsten alloy VNZh.
10,000 rounds per minute - two cannon blocks with a guidance system, mounted on a movable carriage.
Since we are talking about such serious things, it is necessary to remember the mighty "Goalkeeper". The Dutch system has received particular recognition throughout the world.
The artillery unit of the "Goalkeeper" is represented by a seven-barreled 30-mm GAU-8 cannon, similar to the anti-tank gun of the A-10 attack aircraft. The relatively large mass (about 10 tons) and not the highest rate of fire (4200 rds / min) is entirely compensated by the power of the shells. The sub-caliber 30x173 mm MPDS with a 21-mm tungsten core, according to calculations, is capable of guaranteed detonation of the anti-ship missile warhead.
According to the data presented, the capabilities of the "Goalkeeper" allow for 5, 5 seconds to deal with a two-speed missile, similar to the anti-ship missile "Moskit". Detection and tracking at a distance of several miles, opening targeted fire when a missile approaches 1500 m, with complete destruction at a distance of 300 m from the ship.
300 meters. However, if the warhead does not undermine, the Dutch, by all accounts, will face bad consequences.
The wreckage of a 2-fly missile will pierce through and through any destroyer!
It remains to add that, taking into account the similar value of caliber and ballistics (1100 m / s), sub-caliber shells of the domestic "Broadsword" also have a probability of initiation of the anti-ship missile warhead close to 1.0. The subsonic speed of all, without exception, NATO anti-ship weapons in this context simplifies the conditions of the duel.
AK-630 and AK-630M-2 "Duet", "Kortik", "Broadsword", foreign "Goalkeeper" and "Falanx".
Over the past 40-50 years, the idea of firing anti-ship missiles with rapid-fire cannons was considered an obvious solution for all fleets in the world
Oerlikon went farthest, presenting the Millennium anti-aircraft gun, which uses programmable 35 mm projectiles. An intelligent approach instead of the brute power of "metal cutters".
In the author's personal opinion, high technologies are useless in this case. As these examples show, even direct hits from landmines cannot knock an attacking missile off course. How will the near rips, "scratching" the target with small fragments, be useful?
To play by the traditional rules of "Millennium" is hindered by an overly complex construction. Outstanding ballistics and the presence of "conventional" BPS in ammunition are completely devalued by the low rate of fire (only 200-1000 rounds per minute) and the small ammunition load of the installation (252 rounds). In its insolence, this is never a "Broadsword". And not even the AK-630 of the mid-1960s.
"Millennium" was appreciated by the navies of Denmark, Indonesia and Venezuela. But something suggests that the Venezuelan Coast Guard sees a different purpose for this system: shooting at boats and other surface targets.
Another well-known development in the field of naval anti-aircraft guns comes from Italy.
Developed in the 1970s. the DARDO system has been adopted by 14 countries of the world. In fact, it was an attempt to "squeeze" the last possibilities out of the Bofors assault rifles. The artillery unit consists of twin 40 mm guns. With all due respect to the well-deserved Bofors, his time is up. The rate of fire of the latest modifications reaches 2x450 rds / min - an insignificant value in the fight against modern missiles. The high power of 0.9-kilogram shells in this case is not a comforting parameter.
The most widespread (23 countries, 400+ ships) remains the anti-aircraft artillery Falanx. Which lacks stars from the sky, but contains fewer flaws than all other systems. With certain merits.
The Phalanx was originally designed on the same gun carriage with a guidance system to simplify calibration and reduce firing errors. The designers of General Dynamics understood the importance of the speed of the drives: the machine gun is able to send a block of barrels from the horizon to the zenith in less than a second. It is relatively simple and compact, does not contain controversial "innovations" and hard-to-reach records. The impression is spoiled by the relatively small caliber and low power of 20-mm ammunition, however, the creators of the complex are more hoping for the effect produced by shells with a uranium core.
All of these developments have one thing in common:
Impossibility of application in real combat conditions
Due to the extreme lack of time and high missile speeds, the advantages of the ZAC can only be realized in automatic mode. The system must independently seek targets and open fire to kill. She has no time to ask for confirmation.
The threat is not created by the notorious "uprising of machines", but, on the contrary, the imperfection of electronic brains. The program has limitations on the speed range and the size of possible targets, but what decision the computer will make is impossible to predict. And this is not just a software bug. That's 70 shots per second.
He's dangerous.
Eyewitnesses who saw "Falanx" up close, speak of a depressing impression during the operation of the installation. The complex is constantly buzzing with drives and aiming somewhere in the sky. What he sees there, no one has time to understand. The Falanx is already targeting the next target it believes has the potential to pose a threat.
In 1996, the anti-aircraft machine gun of the Japanese destroyer Yubari shredded the Intruder attack aircraft flying nearby.
On another occasion, the Falanx, installed aboard the El Paso weapons transport, after firing at an aerial target, turned fire on the helicopter carrier Iwo Jima, killing those on the bridge.
On a hot February night in 1991, the anti-aircraft gun of the frigate "Jerret" tried to intercept anti-ship missiles fired by the enemy. Instead of Iraqi missiles, he "planted" on Iowa.
By the way, those missiles were intercepted by a British destroyer using an air defense system.
ZAK is not used in practice. Their work is demonstrated in ideal conditions of offshore test sites. In the absence of near all living and nonliving, except for the target itself. After successful shooting, it is turned off and its existence is forgotten.
How to use it in combat conditions? Desperate times call for desperate decisions.
Everyone understands that the anti-aircraft weapons of the escort ships can properly "thin out" the air group of their own aircraft carrier. Or arrange a powerful exchange of volleys between the forces of the connection. Otherwise, there is a risk of a missile attack missed. Choosing the worst of two evils.
The problem is that combat conditions are too sudden.
The crew of the Israeli corvette "Hanit" has clearly forgotten about the presence of "Phalanx" on board. While patrolling along the Lebanese coast, the corvette was suddenly hit by an anti-ship missile (2006).
Of course, the ZAK was inactive at that moment. As already noted, the continuous operation of Phalanx carries unreasonable risks. An automatic anti-aircraft gun will sooner or later riddled some airliner landing at the Beirut airport.
None of the military is ready to be held responsible for a possible tragedy. Therefore, both in peacetime and in wartime, the fleet will do without the Phalanx.
Is it any wonder that during the missile attack in the Persian Gulf the ZAK of the frigate "Stark" was in the "manual control" mode. Simply put, it was disabled. Without the ability to use the combat potential inherent in it.
How the ZAK installed at the stern could intercept a missile at heading angles is another question. About why the project of the frigate provided for only one "Phalanx", we will talk a couple of paragraphs below.
A ship's anti-aircraft gun with an autonomous guidance system is similar to a pistol stored in a safe. In case of a threat, there is no time to get it. And walking with such a pistol is inconvenient, because there is no fuse. And in general, he shoots at an arbitrary moment in time.
The next thesis could be a good introduction to the article or its epilogue. In practice, the obvious parameters of the weapon (faster / higher / stronger) are not so much important as its invisible features in the context of the organization of military service.
What happens if the weapon is the source of permanent emergency?
All officers - from the very top and down the chain of command, will by any means avoid handling such weapons in their units. No one wants to risk their epaulettes. Ultimately, at the moment of the threat, everyone will forget about him.
It seems that this is exactly what is happening with naval short-range anti-aircraft systems.
The damaged "Stark", belonging to the type "Oliver Perry", was equipped with a single ZAK, which covered the aft corners. The reason was the economy in the construction of frigates, which were created for patrol missions in peacetime. And they were under the reliable protection of their national flag. All more or less serious rivals, understanding the consequences, bypassed the American frigate.
Other ships, which formed the basis of the naval forces, always had a closed circuit of short-range air defense. Which consisted of 2-4 automatic anti-aircraft guns.
Anti-aircraft guns were installed, without exception, on all combat and auxiliary ships, incl. boats, transports and integrated supply ships. Cheap and cheerful with sufficiently high combat capabilities.
This continued until the end of the 1990s, when a systematic abandonment of short-range defense systems was outlined. Starting with the 35th corps, all Burke destroyers lost their bow Phalanx.
French and Italian "Horizons" do not have ZAK at all. Just don't talk about Sadral / Simbad / Mistral. A lone launcher with six short-range missiles will provide protection against anti-ship missiles from any direction? With any kind of massive attack? No, this is just decoration.
Another well-known class of frigates (FREMM) is also devoid of ZAK. Cannon installations "Narwhal" and "Erylikon KBA" are anti-terrorist weapons. They are not suitable for intercepting high-speed air attack vehicles.
The frigates of the North-West Group ("Yver Huetfeld", "De Zeven Provincien") retained the "rudiment" in the form of a lone "Goalkeeper" or "Oerlikon Millennium" in the stern of the superstructure. One, just one.
Finally, Zamvolt. The destroyer of the future was never planned to arm the ZAK. According to the project, they promised a pair of 57-mm Bofors universal guns to protect against threats in the near zone. With a rate of fire of about 200 rds / min, such guns are difficult to consider as anti-missile weapons.
In reality, the destroyer received 30-mm GDLS mounts with a futuristic design, which are well suited for shooting at fishing boats. With the known power of 30-mm ammunition and the rate of fire 50 times lower than that of the "Broadsword", they are not designed for more.
It can take a long time to list the various projects and solutions of the designers. But, in my opinion, the conclusion is already quite obvious.
Contrary to popular belief about the importance of "active defense" in modern naval warfare, the opposite is true in practice
The majority of the Navy have by now excluded echeloned defense from consideration, entrusting all air defense / missile defense tasks to long-range anti-aircraft systems and electronic warfare systems. The latter are worthy of the highest praise, but every weapon has its own limit and the likelihood of interception. There will be no one to shoot down missiles that have broken through in the near zone.
I confess that some time ago it seemed absurd to the author. The ZAK is worth mere pennies compared to other weapons aboard a first-rank unit, significantly increasing its chances of surviving a missile attack. But there seems to be a good reason for rejection.
ZAK are useless because of the fears of sailors to get themselves into trouble.
There are a number of fleets that still hold the traditional point of view. Every Japanese destroyer is mandatorily equipped with two Phalanxes. (Probably to surely kill the carrier-based aircraft of the American allies.)
The Chinese are increasingly promoting the idea of the "Goalkeeper", presenting in the recent past the 11-barreled naval anti-aircraft gun "Type 1130", making 11,000 rounds per minute. This is already blasphemy. Primarily due to overheating problems. If the Chinese Navy is so hungry for the density of fire, it is much more logical to consider increasing the number of installations themselves. With a more compact and simpler structure, placed on the superstructure sponsons according to the "rhombus" scheme.
Which point of view does the Russian Navy adhere to?
One glance at the new and under construction frigates of the Navy is enough to see that Russian ships in no way abandon the close line of defense.
On the other hand, the trend is evident: short-range automatic anti-aircraft weapons are gradually losing priority. On the frigates of Project 11356 (lead Admiral Grigorovich), AK-630 anti-aircraft batteries have a reduced composition - one installation on each side. The issuance of data for firing is centrally carried out using the "Positive" radar.
Frigates 22350 (lead "Admiral Gorshkov") are carriers of the most powerful weapons for intercepting anti-ship missiles and strategic offensive weapons in the near zone among all European and American ships. The sides of the frigate are covered by the Broadsword. Which, as mentioned above, hardly have equal rivals among the means of a similar purpose.
"Broadsword" was created as a ZRAK with combined missile and cannon armament, but its missiles are present only in the form of 3D models. A short-range missile defense system was considered redundant in this situation. Sober calculation with an eye to international experience or another result of "budget optimization"? It is a subject to be judged by knowledgeable experts.
How the "active defense" is organized at distant approaches, air defense missile systems and electronic warfare systems and their capabilities will be discussed in the next article.
Looking ahead, I will express a seditious thought. Not a single modern surface ship, either alone or as part of a formation, can withstand the list of anti-ship weapons that have been created over the past decades.
What kind of war are the ships preparing for?
