1945 marked the end of the 600-year-old era of ships with artillery weapons.
The story began with the Christophe sailing car with three bombers and her first shots at the Battle of Arnemaiden (1338). And it ended with a series of cruisers "Des Moines", where one cannon barrel was as long as the entire karakka of the XIV century.
Why is Des Moines taking the finish line, and not the Murmansk, which was laid down eight years later (the last representative of the 68-bis project)? Or the imposing battleship Vanguard, which entered service in 1946?
The answer is simple. Naval artillery stopped in its development on the Des Moines project (the head MRT was laid down in May 1945, commissioned in 1948). The automatic cannons developed for Des Moines combined the power of an eight-inch caliber with the rate of fire of a six-inch gun. And it was wonderful.
And nothing more significant in the field of naval artillery has been created since then. Just as not a single artillery ship was built on which great hopes were pinned.
The Soviet cruisers 68-bis built after the war, like the LKR "Stalingrad" (Project 82), were a development of the projects of the 30s. The first were built rather to revive the shipbuilding industry of the USSR. The second was removed from construction, and this circumstance puts an end to further discussion.
The British HMS Vanguard was equipped with 22 radars at once and had unique capabilities in terms of damage control. A design that has absorbed the experience of both world wars. The perfection of the battleship's silhouette was violated by the main battery towers inherited from the battlecruisers Koreyges and Glories, which were converted into aircraft carriers in the mid-1920s. Gun turrets rusted in warehouses for two decades, until the creators of "Vanguard" paid attention to them. By the way, the 381-mm Mark I gun itself was developed before the First World War.
Nobody was going to create new weapons for the newest battleship.
This fact once again confirms the stagnation and death of naval artillery in the mid-1940s.
What has come to replace her? Probably aviation?
After the end of the war in the United States, out of six Midway-class aircraft carriers, only three were completed. And the construction of the lead supercarrier "United States" was stopped five days after the laying (1949).
As for the USSR, the presence of aircraft-carrying ships in the Navy was not visible even in the future.
After all, a fleet cannot be made up of aircraft carriers alone.
What were the ships of other classes armed with, which replaced cruisers and battleships?
They were armed with rockets!
The first Russian ship with missile weapons was the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov (68-bis). On board in 1955, an experimental complex "Quiver" with a ship-based anti-ship missile "Kometa" was installed.
The following year, the USSR began designing the first ships, originally designed for missile weapons. And the obsolete Nakhimov KRL, despite its young age, was soon written off and sent for cutting.
Note that we managed to travel back in time to the late 1950s!
Overseas, the first missile carriers (Long Beach and Faragat) were also laid down in 1957.
A pair of converted "Baltimors" with aft air defense systems "Terrier", like the domestic "Nakhimov", does not count. Not the most successful improvisations based on the artillery cruisers of the past.
It remains to state that in the period from the end of the war to the end of the 1950s, not a single ship of the "new era" was built either in our country or abroad.
All this time, the American fleet consisted of ships laid down during the Second World War.
After the victory over Japan, the United States suddenly found that its fleet was out of work. All the sea powers were defeated on their backs. Those who have not completely lost their ambitions have become allies. And the main and only rival practically did not have a fleet of its own. The USSR did not depend in any way on sea communications, and its territory stretched for thousands of kilometers deep into the Eurasian continent.
The interests of the fleet faded into the background and was forgotten for a long time.
The Soviet Union at that time led the belated construction of artillery ships in order to at least somehow saturate the Navy. And breathe life into the shipbuilding industry.
The reasons are different, but the result is the same. The transition from artillery to missiles took over TEN YEARS. During which practically nothing was done to move to a new level.
Everything happened in an instant, in 1956-57.
And then it suddenly turned out that the ships of the rocket era could not have anything in common with their predecessors
First, it turned out that the Navy would no longer see large ships.
The terms of the naval treaties of the 1930s, which prescribed restrictions on the standard displacement for cruisers "no more than 10,000 tons" or "35,000 tons" for battleships, seemed somewhat grotesque under the new conditions.
In the Soviet Union, rocket ships were designed on the basis of destroyer hulls. In an effort to highlight their status, the destroyers were reclassified as "cruisers" during the construction phase. And those that were built as "patrol boats" turned into "large anti-submarine ships."
A similar situation developed overseas. Faragat is a destroyer. The larger Lehi is the leader of the DLG destroyers.
How else to designate ships with a total displacement of 5 thousand tons?
"Legs" are somewhat larger - about 7800 tons. But on board there are three missile systems at once, coupled with ocean autonomy, previously available only to the best cruisers and battleships.
The only real giant was Long Beach (16,000 tons). In the title picture for the article, you can see this "white elephant" plowing the Sea of Okhotsk, accompanied by an Iowa-class battleship.
When creating the missile cruiser "Long Beach" was chosen as a basis … the body of the heavy cruiser "Baltimore".
All available and all promising weapons systems were installed on it. A cubic superstructure was "stuck", whose walls were decorated with phased arrays of the SCANFAR experimental radar. Installed 4 missile systems, incl. Cyclopean "Talos", whose 3-ton missiles were assembled from individual components in the workshops of the rocket factory right on board the ship. The boilers were replaced with nuclear reactors, but the gigantic 200-meter hull of the Baltimore, being underloaded, continued to stubbornly rise out of the water.
Then the designers decided to take a desperate step. The Polaris ballistic missile complex was proposed as the main caliber for the "white elephant". Eight reserved silos in the middle of the hull for 13-ton missiles.
Apparently, overseas they missed the cruisers of the outgoing era very much. For their outstanding size and monumental appearance. We decided to build a gigantic rocket ship, but could not find adequate and justifying weapons for its size.
Subsequently, this awkward nuclear-powered cruiser became a source of inspiration for the creation of domestic "Orlans".
But the speech in this article is still not about the strange paths into which technical progress sometimes turns, but about the ships created at the turn of the 50-60s. Firstborns of the missile fleet.
See what results Soviet designers have achieved in this race!
True masters "fit" the maximum of weapons into limited sizes
Project 61. The head was laid in 1959.
"Singing frigates" - so called the world's first series of warships with a gas turbine power plant. Yes, we were once at the forefront of ship propulsion. “Without asking for help from anyone, she herself rose from the ashes of wars and dust …” (K. Simonov).
When commissioned, the representatives of the project 61 were classified as "watchdogs" (TFR). Then, adjusted for size (standard in / and - 3500 tons), it was designated as BOD II rank. Decades later, with the saturation of the fleet with more modern units, they were returned to their original designation - TFR.
The point here is not in the power plant, which made it possible to develop the course from a cold state in 15 minutes (instead of several hours required to “dilute the vapors” of the KTU). Not in the presence of anti-nuclear protection and not in the location of the main command post on the lower deck. These are obvious consequences of technological progress.
The main feature is in a situation in which there is no need for a large displacement. Indeed, until recently, 10,000 tons were not enough for ships of such importance.
How can you describe the capabilities of the BOD, in comparison with the ships of the artillery era?
BOD pr. 61 matched in size to the leaders of destroyers ("Tashkent", "Mogador").
"Tashkent" could fire shells weighing 33 kg.
The "Singing Frigate" could deliver an ammunition weighing 500 kg (after the TTRD burned out) to a distance of 14 km, containing 32 kg of explosives!
To "ship" half a ton of death to the enemy, in the past epoch an artillery piece weighing 55 tons was required (together with a bolt). It made sense to install such a system only on ships with a displacement of tens of thousands of tons. In this case, the indicators of the 305-mm gun of the battle cruiser "Alaska" are given.
Where is Alaska and where is the Singing Frigate?
Shooting at surface and air targets is irrelevant in this context. "Fregat" operated ammunition of such a mass, which were previously used only by LKR and battleships.
Despite its microscopic displacement, against the background of the ships of the past, the BOD pr. 61 was armed with two M-1 "Volna" anti-aircraft missile systems, akin to the ground-based S-125.
Double-girder launchers - one each in the bow and stern. The ammunition supply of each air defense system was carried out from two eight-round drum-type magazines. The total ammunition consisted of 32 missiles with a launch weight of 900 kg.
Each air defense missile system included a bulky "Yatagan" post, which consisted of four antenna devices. All this is on radio tubes. Hence the outstanding size with very unconvincing performance. So, the effective firing range was only 14 km. But discount the imperfection of 1950s technology!
In the next modification of the "Volna", this value increased to 22 km, without a noticeable change in the mass and dimensions of the rocket (late 1960s)
The designers of the project 61 did not forget about the "destroyer" origin of the ship. In addition to rocket armament, a full set of mine and torpedo armament (mine rails, 533 mm torpedoes and RBU) was retained on board.
To top it off, there was a place for artillery. Despite the small caliber (76 mm), the AK-726 artillery mounts occupied a significant share of the mass of the armament of the BOD. Each weighed 26 tons: a consequence of full automation and a rate of fire of 100 rds / min. for each barrel.
By modern standards, the Singing Frigate had an extremely powerful propulsion system for its size. 72,000 hp
Of course, this is not "Tashkent", which had a power plant with a capacity of 130,000 hp for the same dimensions. Unlike torpedo attacks and artillery duels, where speed could be of decisive importance, this parameter has faded into the background for missile ships. The missiles will overtake any enemy, regardless of the difference in speed, plus or minus a few knots.
Let's mark this as another major change in ship design standards. All subsequent years, the trend was only to reduce the power of the power plant and increase its performance.
Having familiarized themselves with the appearance of the BOD project 61, many will express doubts about its sufficient autonomy and seaworthiness. You can't get a full-fledged ship out of a "tin" with a standard displacement of 3500 tons and a total of 4400 tons.
Do not forget, this is a ship of a new era, for which all the laws of the past have ceased to work. The height of the side in the bow of the "singing frigate" reached 10 meters!
This is one of the most important features of ships with missile weapons. It is still weakly manifested in small units, such as pr. 61, but it becomes especially evident in larger examples.
Where the upper deck used to be and the towers of the main caliber stood, now the hull structures continue upward. The ships have a shallow draft relative to the freeboard, practically along the entire length of the hull.
Let me explain again: the ratio of the underwater and surface parts of the hull has changed. Many wondered what would happen to a modern "high-board" ship if they decided to install an armored citadel on it. Like the ships of the past. The answer is nothing. He would have "settled" a few meters in the water, returning to the proportions of ships of the first half of the 20th century.
As for doubts about the sufficient autonomy of the BOD pr. 61, this is partly true. The USSR Navy ordered ships of the near sea zone. Increasing their autonomy was a matter of technique for them. And the size of the battleships is useless there.
Nothing like the "Washington restrictions" and the torment of the designers who could not build a balanced ship with a standard displacement of 10,000 tons.
Take a look at the next generation of Soviet rocket ships. Missile cruiser pr. 1134 (code "Berkut") with a standard displacement of 5300 tons. Full - just above 7000.
At the same time on board - twice as many weapons than the BOD pr. 61.
The same story as with the URO cruisers Belknap and Legi. Well, who dares to blame these ships for lack of autonomy?
I hope readers will enjoy such a versatile excursion into the history of the navy
This material will help to answer frequently asked questions. What changes have occurred in the Navy since the end of World War II? Why are no more battleships being built?
Because 5,000 tons and 50,000 tons are incommensurable values.
As the example of "Long Beach" showed, the designers were unable to properly dispose of the displacement reserves inherited from the heavy cruiser of the past era. 16,000 tons turned out to be surplus for a rocket ship from the period of the 50-60s.
But time does not stand still.
In the last years of the existence of the USSR, a new technical revolution took place in the field of naval weapons. I'm not afraid to say that modern ships have more differences from the ships of the "cold war" period than the firstborn, the RRC, in comparison with the ships of the artillery era.
