In 1967, the Israeli Navy destroyer Eilat was sunk by a missile strike. It's hard to believe that a few years later, during the Yom Kippur War, none of the 54 missiles fired hit their targets.
Eilat (formerly HMS Zealous) did not have the means to counter the latest threat. All that the ship of the 1942 model could do was maneuver and fire outdated anti-aircraft guns. By 1973, the Israelis managed to create primitive samples of radio suppression systems that “clogged” the heads of the Soviet Termites. As a result, the percentage of hitting anti-ship missiles decreased to absolute zero.
From the hot Middle East - to where the icy walls of the South Atlantic rumble.
… the destroyer Sheffield was moving abeam Plymouth. Farther away, invisible behind a veil of fog, the Yarmouth, another frigate of the British forward detachment, moved to the southern tip of the Falklands, floats on the waves. Then everything happened as in a nightmare:
- Reporting from Type 993 radar post, two high-speed targets from the southwest, range 10, altitude 150 feet.
An anxious look from the bridge in the indicated direction - there is nothing there, only a whitish veil of spray and slanting streams of rain …
- It is necessary to check. Contact Sheffield. The weather is clearly not flying, the storm is 7, horizontal visibility is less than 800 yards.
“Sir, Shaffield is not responding. The targets go straight for us, the flight time is less than a minute.
There was no time left. The frigate abruptly banked, crushing the water shafts with its side - the sailors tried to turn astern in the direction of the flying missiles, reducing the projection area of the ship. The Corvus launchers rumbled like a drumbeat, coloring the air with fireworks of passive interference - and the frigate disappeared from the missiles in a saving cloud of dipoles.
The first Argentine Exocet whizzed past and disappeared in the middle of the raging ocean. But the second rocket …
“Sir, Sheffield is on fire!
Air defense destroyer Sheffield did nothing, for which she paid in full. His partner "Plymouth" (a rusty "bucket" built in 1959 with the same antediluvian weaponry) was able to successfully defend against missiles using simple dipole reflectors.
The story of the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor is from the same series. Have you ever wondered why both missiles hit a civilian ship? Unlike warships, the container ship did not have jamming systems.
The shooting at the destroyer "Glamorgan" ended in a similar way. One of the missiles fired immediately after the launch "went crazy" and flew away in an unknown direction, the second hit the destroyer without a warhead explosion (fuse misfire). The destroyer "Glamorgan" was also a superhero, built in 1964. He only managed to turn his ass towards the flying rocket.
The combined missile attack on May 30 ended in vain. The released "Exocets" went into "milk", deafened by the interference of electronic warfare stations.
Another epic case is the damage to the "Stark" in the Persian Gulf. A plane of the "friendly" Iraqi Air Force circled around the American ship for an hour, and then took and shot the Yankees at point-blank range. In fact, it was shooting at range conditions. As in the case of Sheffield, the crew of the American frigate did not provide any resistance to the fire-tail Exocets.
According to statistics, ten exocet-class anti-ship missiles produced six hits in four ships. At the same time, all four “victims”, for various reasons, DID NOT DO ANYTHING to defend themselves against the flying misfortune. In addition, there were three misfires for six hits - 50% of the warheads did not explode!
Under similar conditions, firing was carried out on the destroyer Eilat, whose crew did not even suspect the existence of such a weapon. In a similar way, the Yankees gouged the Libyan MRK Ein-Zaquit. All these targets could not oppose missiles with anything at all.
But it was not always so. Practice shows that those who did at least something to save themselves successfully escaped the blow, even the small and wretched Plymouth.
In April 1988, the Iranian corvette Joshan fired a missile at the American cruiser Wainwright. Of course, the cruiser's electronic warfare systems thwarted the attack, deflecting the threat aside.
During Desert Storm, two Haiin-2 anti-ship missiles were launched at the Coalition ships. One was immediately shot down from the SAM by the British destroyer Gloucester. The second fell into the water, stunned by electronic warfare interference (or out of order for those. Reasons).
But the apotheosis was the active use of electronic warfare in the Yom Kippur War, 54: 0 is a disaster. As if instead of modern homing missiles (fire, forget), the Egyptians had bows and arrows. Although, probably, there would be more sense from arrows.
This raises the question:
Will it not turn out that in a battle with the participation of the leading fleets of the world, with a breakthrough of echeloned air defense and massive use of electronic warfare, out of a hundred missiles fired, one will reach the target? At the same time, it is not yet a fact that its warhead will work as it should.
Are there any alternatives to useless rockets?
In July 1940, seven minutes after the start of the battle at Calabria, the battleship Vorspeit from a distance of 24 kilometers "planted" an 870-kilogram blank into the Italian "Giulio Cesare" (the future "Novorossiysk"). The Italian's speed dropped to 18 knots, and an anti-aircraft gunner on the upper deck was killed. Dozens of sailors were injured in the fight against the outbreak of fire, another fireman suffocated in the smoke.
24 kilometers - as the distance from St. Petersburg to Kronstadt, hitting a fast moving ship (50 km / h). Seven minutes of firing, 136 shots - the only hit. They say it's an accident. So be it. Still better than 54: 0.
Do you remember how the Bismarck “accidentally” sank the Hood from the third salvo?
In 1942, in a night battle near Fr. In Savo, the Japanese riddled five Allied cruisers to death. Without thermal imagers and laser rangefinders. Shooting at obscure silhouettes, in dim spotlights and flares.
Those who like to “poison” stories about how they gave an order for three percent of hits, how guns were aimed “over the boot” and other nonsense, simply do not imagine what kind of threat cannons can pose.
In the Battle of Tsushima, which they love to cite as an example, the battleship "Eagle" received 76 hits, incl. 16 - shells of the main caliber. He survived because he was fourth. The first three matelots ("Prince Suvorov", "Imperial Alexander III", "Borodino") received even more damage (estimated> 100 hits), exhausted their survivability and, in the end, sank. Our gunners also did not sit idly by: according to official Japanese data, the flagship of the Mikasa received 40 hits, incl. 10 - shells of 305 mm caliber. It was not the notorious quality of Russian shells that saved Mikasa, but the fact that 40 hits were too few to sink such an battleship.
Probably aiming at the boot. EBR "Eagle" after the battle.
The development of the LMS instruments did not stand still. During general naval exercises in 1913, the percentage of Baltic Fleet ships hitting a towed target ranged from 16% (“Andrew the First-Called”) to 77% (“Imperial Paul the First”). In real combat, the percentage of hits decreased by an order of magnitude, but was still better than the 54: 0 anti-rocket missile.
In this connection - a new question:
How would the duel of the RRC “Moscow” with an artillery ship like the “Novorossiysk”, hung with modern electronic warfare equipment, have ended? With the domestic complex "Brave", the German MASS (Multi-Ammunition Softkill System), which distributes interference in all possible ranges (radio, thermal, optical, UV) and the AN / SLQ-32 radio suppression system with a directional radiation power of one megawatt.
Ammunition "Moscow" sixteen missiles "Vulcan", at least one of them will be able to reach the target? Once they could not fly as many as 54.
During this time, the Novorossiysk cannons cut a modern ship to look like a nut.
The projectile has a lot of advantages:
A) complete immunity to air defense weapons. Due to its pinpoint size and exceptional speed, three times the speed of sound, the projectile cannot be brought down by anti-aircraft fire. All existing means (land "Falanx") are designed to intercept low-speed mortar mines. Even if, with half a sin, they manage to destroy the projectile, the problem will not disappear anywhere. Following the first projectile, the second flies, a second later - the third, fourth, fifth….
B) Rate of fire! Ship guns weigh tens of tons, due to which they have significant advantages over land artillery. Thanks to the good ergonomics of the fighting compartments, the mechanization of guidance systems and ammunition supply, as well as unlimited cooling by seawater, naval guns “hammer” like a machine gun. Built in 1935, "Brooklyn" fired 100 rounds per minute with the main caliber. Approximately the same number of shots, in automatic mode, makes a Kalashnikov assault rifle per minute. Of course, if the shooter knows how to quickly change stores. Impressive?
The 203 mm gun of the post-war cruiser Des Moines had a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute.
Created on its basis in 1975, the automatic 8 / 55 Mk.71 (for arming nuclear cruisers of the CSGN project) showed the result of 12 rounds / min.
Tests of the Mk.71 aboard the destroyer Hull
C) match the rate of fire - ammunition! The missile cruiser "Moskva" carries only 16 anti-ship "Volcanoes", the modernized "Nakhimov" promises as many as 80 cells to accommodate strike weapons.
The cruiser "Des Moines" had 150 rounds for each gun, the modern "Zamvolt" - 300 !!!
* In addition to two automated ammunition racks, Zamvolta has an additional cellar for 320 rounds. In total, the destroyer's ammunition includes 920 guided and unguided 155 mm projectiles (the LRLAP mass reaches 102 kg, the explosive content is 11.8 kg - twice as much as in conventional six-inch shells).
D) Speed! 90% of modern missiles (Harpoon, Exocet, Caliber) have subsonic speed during the cruise phase of flight. The cannon shell flies three times faster. Even faster than super-heavy exotic anti-ship missiles, capable of developing speeds of 2, 6 … 2, 8 M. at high altitudes.
Minimum reaction time. Instant acceleration. Lightning strike! The enemy has only a few seconds left before meeting with a cylindrical death.
D) Unlike tiny rocket heads, projectiles do not care about any means of electronic warfare and stealth technology.
E) High destructive impact! When the dense metal shell of the projectile breaks, heavy fragments are formed that can pierce and destroy everything in their path: any bulkheads, pipelines, mechanisms. Plus, the high mechanical strength of the shells, which allows them to penetrate into the depths of the hull, to the most important posts of the ship.
G) The reliability of the fuses is poor. In the event of artillery fire, the possible failure of the fuse is compensated for by a large number of shells hitting the target. Unlike the only rocket that has flown in, which is not yet a fact that it will explode.
H) Cost! The design of the projectile a priori lacks a turbojet engine and a starting booster, aerodynamic rudder drives, a power supply system, gyroscopes of an inertial system and a complex seeker with a miniature radar.
Even the most "advanced" models of guided missiles with a bottom gas generator and a GPS guidance system are 5 times cheaper than the Harpoon light anti-ship missile. As for the cost of ordinary "blanks", then they are consumables of war … Produced in whole wagons.
Epilogue
The only so far unsurpassed advantage of the missile is its long flight range, as well as the ability to independently search for targets over the horizon. However, it is not at all a fact that it will reach the target … But we have already spoken about this.
To destroy objects of ground infrastructure, artillerymen just need to get a satellite image with the coordinates of the targets. Next, the LRLAP smart projectiles will do it all on their own. Their practical flight range exceeds 100 km, and their power is quite enough to defeat typical targets (house / TV tower / hangar / air defense missile systems). It is far from always necessary to annihilate the enemy into dust, during the Second World War, the main caliber of the Luftwaffe was 50 kg bombs, and this was quite enough to defeat most of the known targets.
According to the Pentagon itself, most of the known conflicts could be successfully resolved by naval artillery. In Vietnam, the consumption was one million shells. The most successful precedent is the fire from the sea on the Syrian air defense systems in the Bekaa Valley (1983)
If the fight against coastal targets does not raise questions, then the use of artillery in modern naval combat looks at least controversial. When large warships of the "destroyer" class meet, the line-of-sight range will be no more than 40 kilometers. However, with the current level of development of drones and quadrocopters, it costs nothing to increase this distance, at least threefold. At the same time, unlike unreliable missiles, the probability of being hit by shells is calculated in double digits! With the modern level of computing facilities and devices capable of determining the distance with an accuracy of a meter.
The above facts indicate that artillery has the right to be an equal partner of missile weapons, designed to solve any problem. The real confirmation of this hypothesis was the missile and artillery "Zamvolt" and plans to install AGS systems on the destroyers "Berk" of the third sub-series.
In the not too distant future, naval artillery will gain even greater importance with the advent of electromagnetic railguns. Hypersonic projectile speeds and a range of three hundred kilometers promise a new era in naval history.
Tests of the combat railgun, 2008
