Towards the end of the outgoing year, I wanted to please the audience with a retrospective discussion about ship armor. The topic was a huge success some time ago. The interest was not accidental: in the course of the dispute, many aspects related to the armament, design and layout of ships were raised. New visitors, perhaps, will also be interested to know why the spears broke so violently on the pages of "VO".
I will try to sort out the theses on the shelves.
P. 1. Any additional obstacle on the way of the enemy is a chance to survive. And you have to be very naive and technically illiterate to neglect this opportunity
There is a detail here that is overlooked. Take a closer look. See? The upper part of the destroyer's side (shirstrek) is made of high quality HY-80 steel with a yield strength of 80 thousand feet per square meter. inch (550 MPa). Below is a cheap structural steel that was torn to shreds by the blast wave. The border runs along the weld. It is no coincidence that when a new type of destroyer was created (Zamvolt), its hull was entirely made of HSLA-80 high-strength steel.
Convincing enough? With just such a minor detail as an increase in the strength of the skin, it is obvious that reduce damage.
From the history of naval battles: the attack on the cruiser York, 1941 Instead of detonating a mine near the freeboard, the Italians developed a “cunning plan” with a breaking boat and a sinking charge that worked at a depth of 8 m. Why were there such difficulties? The soldiers of Prince Borghese understood that the explosion in the area of the protected side was ineffective.
P. 2. Useful qualities of armor in modern conditions
2.1. Guaranteed to protect against the debris of downed missiles.
The training interception of targets (anti-ship missile simulators) is always carried out in conditions far from reality. The interception is carried out on parallel courses so that the debris does not "catch" the ship. Otherwise, it is an inevitable catastrophe. Even if the automatic anti-aircraft guns ("metal cutting") shoot down the anti-ship missiles, the debris of the missile ricochets off the water and reaches the target. Tested in real incidents: Target debris riddled the warships Entrim and Stoddard.
Practice shows: interception in the near zone is useless if there is no way to stop the wreckage.
The most realistic and reliable means of protection constructive protection is provided against such threats.
2.2. The armor provides protection (up to the complete leveling of the threat) against all types of modern anti-ship missiles of NATO countries.
"Harpoon", "Exocet", NSM, Italian "Otomat", Swedish RBS, Japanese "Type 90" - depreciation of all world stocks of anti-ship weapons.
With a relatively small thickness, differentiated protection (50-100 mm) is capable of protecting against an explosive device containing tens or even hundreds of kg of explosives. The case of the destroyer Cole shows a dramatic reduction in damage while doubling the plating strength. In the second case ("York"), we observed a refusal to detonate in the area of the armored belt due to the obvious uselessness of such an attack.
50 … 150 kg of explosives is the equivalent of the warhead of most anti-ship missiles.
You will, of course, remind about the speed of the rocket, which is close to the speed of sound. The answer is simple: speed without mechanical strength means nothing.
The results of shells hitting armor are well known. Unfortunately, there is practically no reliable description of the cases of collisions with the armor of aircraft (aircraft, missiles). I was able to find only one case, captured on camera.
A kamikaze strike into the armored belt of the cruiser HMS Sussex with a thickness of 114 mm. Unsuccessful attack: paint scratched. The same expects the "Harpoon" when it meets the Krupp's cemented armor: the plastic anti-ship missile system will collapse. The explosion of the warhead will occur outside the side, without noticeable consequences for the internal compartments.
Other scenarios are possible. In reality, anti-ship missiles have never been fired at armored plates, but two assumptions can be made based on examples from the history of naval battles:
- at sharp meeting angles with the armor, there is a possibility of a ricochet;
- the warhead of the anti-ship missile system can be destroyed in a time that is insufficient for the fuse to operate.
2.3 When meeting with exotic heavy anti-ship missiles (“Brahmos”), constructive protection, one way or another, will help localize damage.
At the same time, an increase in the speed and warhead (i.e., the launch mass of missiles) negatively affects the number of possible carriers and the number of anti-ship missiles in a salvo, which undoubtedly facilitates the work of the ship's anti-aircraft weapons. Another indisputable plus from the installation of armor.
* * *
In my opinion, there were presented sufficiently compelling reasons (the fight against missile debris, the devaluation of the existing arsenals of anti-ship missiles) for the question of returning constructive protection to be entitled to life in the 21st century.
Damage to antenna devices is equally painful for protected and unprotected ships. But, you see, it would be it is strange to write off the cruiser as an expense, as soon as the first splinter scratched the radar.
The cost of one unused ammunition load of the Ticonderoga cruiser alone can reach a billion dollars. Therefore, the damaged ship is recommended to reach the base. Not to mention the lives of 200-300 crew members. Be among them, your son, and the number of skeptics who deny the benefits of constructive protection will immediately diminish.
Even with a broken radar, a modern ship poses a threat to the enemy. Fighting submarines, shooting at external target designation. Technical capabilities allow you to fight to the last. The main thing is not to burn out from the first rocket that breaks through.
P. 3. Structural protection is a system of armored decks, bevels, internal fragmentation bulkheads and other protective elements. The appearance of which is subject to continuous change
In each of the eras, the designers demonstrated the difference in approaches to the methods of protection and ensuring the combat stability of posts, compartments and mechanisms.
History has known many interesting concepts, for example, "Dupuy de Lom". French cruiser with full freeboard protection: 100 mm thick armor from the waterline to the upper deck!
The existence of "de Loma", the best of the cruisers of its era, refutes the opinion of skeptics that the armor belt is in the form of a narrow "strip" in the waterline area. And it cannot protect the entire board as a whole.
Another striking example: the American cruiser Worcester, where the priority was given to protection from air bombs. Hence - the most powerful 90 mm armored deck, exceeding the weight of the armor belt.
There were aircraft carriers with fully armored flight decks (Illastries, Midway).
The British had the battleship Vanguard, where the experience of both world wars was taken into account when building. In addition to traditional armored belts, its designers did not skimp on 3,000 tons of anti-fragmentation bulkheads.
Everything has its purpose. Real ship models demonstrate the endless flight of design ideas. Don't say it's impossible. I hate this word.
P. 4. Armor is not a hindrance to weapons, antenna posts and systems of a modern ship
You will probably want to know where this confidence comes from.
First, armor was an integral part of all ships of the past.
Secondly, we know for surethat the mass and dimensions of modern engines and weapons are significantly inferior to their predecessors. They also impose less stringent layout restrictions than artillery and high speed travel.
Nowadays, no one attaches importance to the radius of the sweeping of trunks ("dead zone" on the deck, an area of hundreds of square meters. Meters).
In the era of compact UVP, the concept of a diagram of the angles of fire of guns, which used to determine the value of a ship as a combat unit, disappeared. And I asked all its layout.
No one is trying to accelerate cruisers to 37 knots, installing dozens of boilers and turbines with a capacity of 150 thousand hp.
A paradoxical example: in terms of the power of its power plant, the Japanese cruiser Mogami (1931) was superior to the nuclear-powered Orlan!
One tower of the Mogami's main caliber weighed as much as 48 launchers for the Caliber. The Japanese had five such towers in total.
Despite the bulky artillery, the disproportionate power plant, the crew of thousands and the imperfect technology of the 1930s, the cruisers of that era had powerful armor plating.
The cruiser "Mogami" with its brutal characteristics (speed, firepower) carried 2000 tons of armor.
So where do the doubts come from that modern missile ships are categorically incapable of having constructive protection ?!
Radars and analog computers existed alongside heavy artillery weapons and body armor. For example, the Mogami was equipped with a standard Type 21 general detection radar with an outstanding antenna size.
The electronic equipment of ships of other countries was even more diverse: for example, the Worcester KRL had 19 radars, the Vanguard battleship - 22.
We remembered about “Worcester” not in vain. The cruiser, among other things, was equipped with the anti-nuclear protection system that all modern ships have. Note, without any prejudice to its constructive protection.
What do these examples show? The fact that the attempts of skeptics to explain the abandonment of armor by the lack of space due to the appearance of new equipment (radars, computers, PAZ) look unconvincing.
Try, book: this is how a dispute usually begins, with a proposal to describe the project of installing protection on the Peter the Great TARKR.
What will happen if an armored belt is installed on the Orlan? In general terms, nothing. The hull of the heavier cruiser will sink several meters into the water, and “Peter” will acquire the proportions of wartime cruisers.
Which the draft exceeded the freeboard.
The board of "Peter the Great" rises 11 meters above the water. In the bow, it is even higher - jumping from there is like jumping from the roof of a five-story building. At the same time, the maximum value of its draft is “only” 8 meters. The atomic giant stands as if ankle-deep in water.
At a time when most of the hulls of the ships of the past were under water.
At the level where the upper deck used to be and the turrets with guns stood, now the tall side continues!
Skeptics are intimidated by the idea of high sides. How much armor plate is required! And how will this affect stability? However, everything is much simpler.
Turning to the topic of constructive protection, one should not just sculpt armor plates for existing high-board cruisers, but carry out a deeper analysis, taking into account the appearance of highly protected ships of the past.
P. 5. The cost of installing the armor
Is negligible.
The grounds for such a categorical statement:
5.1. The cost of metal for making the hull of "Arleigh Burke" is only … 5% of the final cost of the Aegis destroyer!
The main costs are associated with high-tech weapons.
5.2. Highly protected ships were massively built in the first half of the twentieth century. So, at the turn of the 1940-50s. in the Soviet Union was built a series of 14 cruisers pr. 68-bis. In the 21st century, with the availability of new metalworking technologies and an increase in labor productivity, the manufacture of 100 mm metal plates will become a truly insoluble problem.
The described examples testify to one thing: the introduction of armored elements will remain unnoticed against the background of other costs in the construction of a warship with a total displacement of 10-15 thousand tons.
Anything done by one person can be broken by another
It's all about effort and time. Withstanding one more hit than your opponent is invaluable.
The above were sufficient reasons for bringing the idea to life:
- increased combat stability (protection from debris and most types of existing anti-ship missiles);
- technical feasibility (if they could before, they can now).
A solution to a wide range of problems at the lowest cost.
Facts and logic.
This is, in general, the concept of increasing the security for warships. Which causes genuine amazement among everyone who is used to thinking that armor is a relic of the past, and its use is completely useless in modern combat. Skeptics are not even embarrassed by the fact that ground-based military equipment is constantly increasing in mass (it has already reached 80 tons) due to continuous attempts to strengthen protection.
Now I ask for your questions and comments.
