The trigger for writing this review was a phrase from an article on the ratio of volumes and loads of ships.
Modern ships need large volumes to accommodate weapons and equipment. And these volumes in comparison with the armored ships of the Second World War have grown significantly. AND, Despite the qualitative improvement of missile technology from primitive samples of the 50s to the most modern, the volumes allocated for missile weapons are not decreasing.
Alexey Polyakov.
Let's start with the fact that, contrary to the title "XXI century", the respected author for some reason hesitated to consider modern ships.
Instead of the frigate “Adm. Gorshkov”and the Type-45 destroyer under the guise of“modern ships”cruisers of past eras were considered:“Grozny”,“Berkut”,“Slava”. With all due respect to the heroes of the past, they have as much in common with “Gorshkov” as the Spanish galleon of the 17th century resembles the EBR of the Russo-Japanese War.
How did it happen that between the ships of the 60-80s. and modern frigates turned out to be a technological abyss deep into eternity? Which technologies have gone so far beyond the horizon?
A vivid example is the emergence of compact underdeck UVPs, which have changed the entire paradigm of storing and launching rocket ammunition.
The abandonment of the beamed Mk.26 GMLS in favor of the infamous Mk.41 led to dramatic changes in the ship's design.
Just gigantic volumes. More than the artillery cellars and barbets of the towers of the artillery ships of the past
Possessing the same ammunition load (64 missiles), the Mk.41 installation turned out to be TWICE lighter than its predecessor (117 versus 265 tons, “dry weight” without missiles). Energy consumption has decreased by 2, 5 times (200 instead of 495 kW in peak mode, due to the absence of the need to move the missiles and rotate the "bollard" of the launcher). The number of sailors to maintain and operate the facility has been cut in half (10 instead of 20).
The overall dimensions of the 64-cell UVP are 8, 7 x 6, 3 x 7, 7 m. For comparison, the length of the MK.26 Mod.2 girder was more than 12 meters. The depth and width of the missile cellar approximately corresponded to the UVP.
Yes, I completely forgot. The specified version of the UVP is designed for longer (+ 1 meter) and heavier (2 times) new generation missiles - space interceptors and Tomahawks. The Mark-41 has export modifications for conventional missiles - such UVPs are even lighter and more compact.
So consider how appropriate it is to equate the cruisers of the 60-80s. to modern destroyers and frigates.
Progress in the field of missile weapons is not everything. Now, using examples of real ships, you will see what a grandiose path the radar, detection equipment and fire control systems have traveled.
The first choice was made by the author of the previous article - the missile cruiser of Project 58 (“Grozny”). 1962 year. Length 142 meters. Full displacement - 5500 tons.
His opponent will be the Russian frigate pr. 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov" (on trials since 2015)
Length 135 meters. Full displacement of 4500 tons. Crew - 210 people (100 people less than the crew of the cruiser "Grozny"). Combat capabilities are incommensurable.
Ships look different these days.
The first, and most obvious, is the absence of weapons on the decks. The storage and launch of rocket ammunition is carried out from the UVP silos, safely hidden in the depths of the ship's hull. At the same time, the ammunition of the frigate in terms of the number and performance characteristics of missiles surpasses everything that was available on the cruisers of previous eras.
On board the "Gorshkov" two UKSK modules are installed, in total - 16 mines for the placement of strike weapons (supersonic anti-ship missiles "Onyx", KR family "Caliber"). For comparison, the Project 58 cruiser had two quadruple launchers and 16 P-35 anti-ship missiles. Which did not find a place inside the hull and had to stand on the open deck. If you do not take into account the performance characteristics of the missiles, then in terms of the number of strike weapons, the cruiser and the frigate have parity.
The frigate's anti-aircraft armament is represented by the Poliment-Redut air defense missile system, whose ammunition load is located in 32 UVP cells. The launch weight of the 9M96E2 rocket is 420 kg. The maximum firing range is 120 … 150 km.
On board the cruiser "Grozny" there was also a "Volna" air defense missile system with ammunition load of 16 missiles (two under-deck "drums" ZIF-101 and a movable girder launcher). The mass of the anti-aircraft missile is 923 kg, the maximum firing range is 15-18 km.
Launcher ZIF-101. For a correct perception of the dimensions, it is worth considering that the length of each rocket was 6 meters!
Once again, if you do not take into account the rate of fire of the complexes and performance characteristics of missiles, a modern frigate carries a missile ammunition of the same mass and twice as much in quantity. If we close our eyes to the difference in combat capabilities, then the composition of the rest of the weapons is also on par.
The armament of the old cruiser included two AK-726 twin artillery mounts, two batteries of AK-630 anti-aircraft guns, RBU and torpedo tubes.
The modern frigate is armed with one 130 mm A-192 cannon, two “Broadsword” short-range self-defense systems and two “Paket-NK” quadruple anti-submarine torpedo launchers.
The only major difference is that the entire aft part of the frigate superstructure is occupied. hangar of a ship's helicopter. Unlike modern ships, the permanent basing of the aircraft on the cruiser pr. 58 was not provided (there was only a helipad).
The total of this calculation becomes a simple and obvious fact: a modern frigate smaller by 1000 tons carries more weapons than cruisers of the 1960s. Which completely contradicts the statement:
… despite the qualitative improvement of rocket technology from primitive samples of the 50s to the most modern, the volumes allocated for rocket weapons are not decreasing.
The second notable difference is the absence of bulky masts with a dozen parabolic antennas. The entire radar complex of a modern ship is located inside the "pyramid" in the bow of the superstructure. The main secret of "Gorshkov" was the multipurpose radar 5P-20K "Polyment" of four fixed "mirrors" placed on the side faces of the pyramid.
Possibilities of "Polyment" are similar to battle fiction. Exceptionally high resolution. Possibility to change the beam width. Instantaneous (within milliseconds) scanning of the selected area of the sky. Versatility and multitasking. Simultaneous shelling of up to 16 air targets.
Another antenna post is located on top of the frigate's pyramidal foremast. This is a general detection radar (5P27 "Furke-4" or "Frigat-MAE-4K"). The laconic nature of the means of detecting and controlling anti-aircraft fire is the calling card of the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov". Access to the privileged ship club of the 21st century.
No bulky parabolic antennas and illumination radars (which all shipborne air defense systems of the previous generation sinned about). Two universal radars take on the whole range of tasks for detecting and tracking air targets and controlling launched missiles, ensuring the operation of naval anti-aircraft weapons.
“Admiral Gorshkov” is far from the limit. Another ship is on the horizon. Strict Nordic features in thunderstorm gray color. Meet: the Dutch air defense frigate "De Zeven Provincien" (2002). The radar complex "Seven Provinces" consists of two systems: the multifunctional APAR radar with four active PAR and the decimeter long-range detection radar SMART-L, capable of distinguishing targets in space orbits.
A formidable frigate with an even more sophisticated design.
Max.detection range of 2000 km, 40 missile silos, a helicopter and other versatile weapons. From 2017, frigates of this type will be included in the American missile defense system in Europe.
The picture shows the Yatagan antenna post of the Volna air defense missile system fire control system. Five parabolic antennas for determining the exact position of the target and transmitting radio commands to fired missiles. For initial detection, two more Angara radars were used, located on the tops of both masts.
And you say nothing has changed since then.
In principle, all these problems were common to all ships of that time. Even the most modern domestic cruisers (pr. 1164 and 1144 "Orlan") sinned with a large amount of bulky and ineffective equipment, their missiles required specialized guidance and target illumination stations. By the way, the American "Aegis" (1979 system) suffers from a similar disadvantage.
Complaints about the volumes required to accommodate modern electronics and some special measures for cooling and air conditioning of premises are also naive. All this childish babble is refuted by the only fact: all the means of detection and equipment of the command posts of the S-300 fit on mobile chassis! And this is the beginning of the 1980s, when even the most desperate science fiction writers could not dream of laptops and iPhones.
Icy tundra, the heat of the Khmeimim airbase, rain and snow, a mobile air defense system must be able to work in any conditions! Does a similar complex aboard a modern ship need some kind of huge "computer rooms" with incredible air quality control measures?
What is this nonsense? In what century do those who claim this live?
Everything has changed on a modern ship. Layout, weapons, composition of detection equipment and control systems, power plant (highly efficient diesel engines and turbines instead of boilers), automation, reduced crew size.
That is why it became possible to build compact warships with the most powerful strike and defensive weapons in a hull with a displacement of 4500-6000 tons.
