MED. Maritime training ground off the island of Ile do Levant
An alarming ruby flashed and shone on the panel SWG-1, the operators of the CIC of the destroyer "Rafael Peralta" began preparations for the launch of an experimental rocket. The guidance systems woke up, data on the coordinates of the launch point and the optimal route to the target, the design scheme and the method of attack flowed into the on-board computer of the anti-ship missile system. When the command "Start" passed along the chain, the ship shuddered from the roar of the launching rocket. The last thing the officers on the bridge saw was how terribly the bulkhead bent under the onslaught of violent might. In a moment it burst, and everything that was nearby was carried away somewhere into the night, night, into the night.
A voice broke through the crackle of the ether:
- Report the incident to the headquarters of the exercise. Holy Christmas !!! An American destroyer shot itself through the superstructure …
What happened (or could have happened) at the NATO naval exercise? About this - in the new chapter of the naval fighter on the confrontation of modern weapons and means of protection.
In disputes about naval weapons, the main argument of all experts is the P-700 "Granit" anti-ship missile system. Seven tons at three speeds of sound will pierce any defense. And none of the clever guys somehow guessed: why are they going to sink Russian ships with Russian missiles? Who here dreams of repeating the feat of Lieutenant Schmidt? If you are already going into battle, then choose an adequate opponent.
Universal air, ship and submarine-based missile "Harpoon" (USA and twenty-five of their faithful allies), Exocet (in service with 30 countries of the world), unremarkable "Type 90" (Japan), prohibitively "smart" and modern NSM (Norway - NATO), little-known RBS (Sweden), domestic export Kh-35 "Uranus", promising American LRASM, decommissioned "Tomahawk" modification TASM, Israeli "Gabriel", Italian "Automat", European "Scalp-Naval", Chinese counterfeit "Yingji" for the ragamuffins of Hezbollah and ISIS …
The list is weak? The missiles are too weak, the most massive of which (LRASM and TASM) weigh only about a ton.
And this is amazing. None of the foreign anti-ship missiles even come close to the seven-ton "monsters of the two elements" from the Chalomey design bureau.
Well, what if “over the hill” they still decide to create their own “Granite” and equip all cruisers, destroyers and submarines with it? Well, easy!
Rattlesnake
In response to the construction of a series of large destroyers in China, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has begun work to create an adequate response. The project became known as the “Revolutionary Approach to Long Range Rapid Strike” or, for short, RATTLRS (Rattlesnake).
A new generation supersonic missile launcher capable of knocking out a rank 1 ship due to its massive warhead and high speed. Such weapons have never been used by Western navies before. The only prototype could serve as the Soviet super-heavy missiles designed by the Design Bureau im. Chelomeya: "Granite" - "Basalt" - "Volcano".
Length with accelerator - 30 feet 9 meters.
Case diameter - 1, 14 m.
Launch weight - 15,000 lb 7,000 kg.
The estimated launch range is 500 miles 800 km.
The flight profile is combined, with a marching section at an altitude of 20,000 m.
Thanks to modern technologies, it was planned to increase the exorbitant characteristics of the Chelomeev missiles to the level of fantastic blockbusters. The declared speed of RATTLRS on the cruising section of Mach 3-4 is over a kilometer per second! Nevertheless, in the final section, due to air resistance at low altitudes, the RATTLRS, like its predecessors, slowed down to one and a half times the speed of sound.
Like its Soviet counterparts, the RATTLRS could be equipped with a 700 kg high-explosive warhead with a focused impact on the target. According to calculations, a directed explosion of a warhead could break the skin over an area of 22 square meters. m and cleanly “burn out” the compartments 12 meters deep.
It doesn't matter how many years it would take to develop a rocket. To begin with, it was required to determine the range of its possible carriers. And at this stage "some technical difficulties" arose.
The main and practically the only option for the deployment of missile ammunition in the fleets of the United States and its allies is the Mark-41 universal installation. She is equipped with 85 surface combat units of the US Navy, as well as 24 Japanese destroyers, seven ships of the German Navy, five ships of the Spanish Navy, etc. etc. In total, over 150 cruisers, destroyers and frigates flying the flags of 13 countries of the world.
All these "Orly Burks" and their clones were originally built with this system in mind. The under-deck installation with multiple launch cells is one of the main "know-how" in the design of Western ships built since the end of the Cold War.
The installation is extremely compact. The 64-cell structure, including missiles, weighs 230 tons and takes up very little space in relation to the size of the ship.
Barely distinguishable dotted rectangles in the bow and stern of the destroyer. This is the entire ammunition stock of the Orly Burk, together with the technical means of monitoring and ensuring the launch of missiles.
The UVP of the longest "shock" modification (installed only on US Navy ships) provides storage and launch of missiles up to 7.7 meters long and with a maximum launch weight of 1.6 tons.
These restrictions are enough to accommodate Tomahawk destroyers and SM-3 space interceptors. But will the size of the UVP be enough to accommodate the analogs of "Granit"?
For comparison: the diameter of the circumscribed circle (1350 mm, the diameter of the body, taking into account the folded wings) of the Soviet anti-ship missile system is almost three times the diameter of the launch cell of the American UVP. In other words, when the Granites are placed on board (one for every 9 cells), the ammunition load of American destroyers will sharply decrease from 90 to 10 missiles.
Of course, "Granites" as a promising RATTLRS would be longer than everything that was put before them. If they are "tamped" into the UVP, then they will pierce the lower deck and fall down.
But the funniest thing will start when you try to launch the monsters. Launchers of the nuclear powered Orlan (SM-233 of the Granit complex) are in fact not vertical. These are inclined shafts set at an angle of 60 degrees to the horizon.
This was done for two reasons.
1. In order to reduce the required power of the launching accelerator and the associated mechanical and thermal loads on the structure of the ship.
With an inclined launch, the rocket, having barely got out of the shaft, immediately opens its wings and begins to use aerodynamic lift to support itself in flight.
2. For security reasons. In case of vertical launch, in case of failure of the launching booster, the 7-ton rocket will "flop" onto the deck and destroy the entire ship. When using an inclined launch, the failed ammunition will have time to fly off to the side by tens (hundreds) of meters and collapse into the sea.
But this was not enough. To prevent the monster from burning the entire ship during the launch, the SM-233 installation had to be filled with seawater before launching.
By this time, it became obvious that the standard American UVP, to put it mildly, did not meet the requirements for storing and launching missiles like Granit and Vulcan.
If the insane designers still decide to equip the Atago and Ticonderoga with a similar system, then the SM-233 mine will safely "pierce" several bulkheads and stand across the compartments before taking its place. What will they do with the seawater lines and the new cooling requirements for the silos? The answer to this question no longer makes sense.
You can go back 40 years by trying to place missiles in a launcher on the upper deck. Side by side, in two rows, as it was done on the RRC pr. 1164 "Atlant".
But, barely receiving the sketches, the Advanced Defense Research Agency scrapped the program. The fact is that ABSOLUTELY ALL ships built since the beginning of the 90s have a single look with a hypertrophied box-shaped superstructure stretching from side to side.
Japanese "Atago"
French FREMM
Russian pr. 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov"
What for?
First, to reduce the ship's signature using stealth technology.
Secondly, for ease of layout. Place the bridge higher, at the same time using the superstructure itself (instead of the traditional mast) as a "tower" for placing the radars. Whose antenna devices are often "glued" to the outer walls of the superstructure.
In this situation, the destroyer will demolish its superstructure with the first salvo. In much the same way as it happened at the very beginning of the article.
You can try to mount a couple of installations on the tank, in front of the superstructure. In much the same way as quadruple launchers for the Tomahawks were on the Spruence. The only misunderstanding is that the Tomahawk is five times lighter than the seven-ton Granite.
Seven tons of fire from the launching accelerator will burn through the Arly superstructure and blow all the phased antennas of the destroyer to hell.
Another option with the transverse placement of the launcher, when the torch of the engine of the starting rocket is turned overboard, will also not pass. Purely because of the peculiarities of the layout of modern "Berks", "Daringts" and "Horizons". Most of the silhouette of these ships is occupied by the same box-shaped superstructure "from side to side". The remaining “spots” of the deck on the bow and in the stern are loaded to the limit with the necessary equipment. UVP cells, universal artillery and a helipad. An attempt to "stick" seven-ton missiles there is only at the expense of abandoning some of the weapons and systems. However, the exchange of 32 universal missile silos of the American destroyer for a "box" with four RATTLRS anti-ship missiles, from the point of view of the Russian Navy, would be an excellent result. We have achieved our goal. The destroyer of the "probable enemy" has completely lost its versatility, the lion's share of its striking and defensive power. And all for what? Four multi-ton anti-ship missiles. Three "ha" times.
The Revolutionary Approach to Time Critical Long-Range Strike (aka RATTLRS) project in the form of a seven-ton anti-ship missile system has become completely absurd. None of the modern Western warships is capable of firing anything even remotely similar to the Granite or Vulcan. These exotic monsters were the hallmark of the Soviet Navy, and due to their bulkiness, they survived only on a few operational units.
Bad advice
As part of the rearmament for new high-power missiles, the Americans are urged to cut all 22 cruisers and 64 destroyers, and at the same time 58 multipurpose nuclear submarines. Since none of these ships in their current form has the ability to fire multi-ton super RCC. This could require a deep modernization with the replacement of the entire superstructure and a complete rearrangement of the hull, comparable in cost to the construction of a new ship.
As for the local regulars of the forum "VO", then to the question "What is the problem to put" Granites "on a modern destroyer?" an exhaustive answer was given.
