A previous article about "inexplicable" discrepancies in the ratio of combat load between modern ships and ships of the Second World War caused a heated debate on the pages of "VO". Participants put forward various theories, eventually coming to the wrong conclusions.
I think it is necessary to develop this topic and thereby dot the “i's”.
Briefly the problematics of the question.
Armored monsters of the past, whose gun turrets weighed more than half a modern destroyer. With thick armored decks and super-powerful turbines, with which only the power plants of nuclear cruisers can now be compared. Despite all this steampunk, bulky combat posts and crews of thousands of people, the displacement of the cruisers remained within reasonable limits. Depending on the type, from 10 to 20 thousand tons.
Half a century has passed. Gone are the bulky main-caliber turrets. The designers completely abandoned the armor. Reduced crews several times. We limited the speed of ships, thereby reducing the required power of their power plants. Increased efficiency by using efficient diesel engines and gas turbines. We switched from radio tubes to tiny microcircuits. They placed the weapon in the underdeck space, further reducing the overturning moment it creates. Progress has touched everything that can only be dreamed of - on a modern ship, each element (shield, crane, generator) weighs less than a device of a similar purpose on a WWII cruiser.
The battle conditions have changed. Everything has changed! But the displacement of the ships remained the same.
It is clear that “squeezing” the cruiser to the size of a missile boat is unreasonable. Still, ensuring seaworthiness, etc.
But in this case, we have 3,000 tons of load reserve. And now they need to be filled with something and rationally used.
"So they are being used!" - the dear reader will exclaim. Thousands of tons were spent on missiles, radars, computers, six-barreled anti-aircraft guns and other high-tech equipment …
And it turns out to be wrong.
In terms of the relative weight of weapons (payload), modern ships are two times inferior to WWII cruisers (in which the payload also means armor protection).
The armor is gone now. And all the elements of weapons - both together and separately (missiles and launchers, radars, consoles in the combat information center, etc.) weigh less than the weapons and control systems of WWII cruisers.
How is this possible? Just a few striking examples:
Armored fire control system director Mk.37 with two radars Mk.12 and Mk.22. Post weight 16 tons.
The main radar system "Aegis" - AN / SPY-1 modification "B". The mass of each of the four phased antennas installed on the walls of the superstructure is 3.6 tons. Five equipment rooms, the weight of the equipment is indicated at 5 tons. Those. even taking into account all four HEADLIGHTS and signal processor equipment, modern radar barely weighs up to one rusty director. And on warships of a bygone era, there were from two to four such directors.
The Aegis cruiser also has an additional two-dimensional radar and four radars for target illumination. The illumination radar weighs 1225 kg, the mass of moving elements (plate) is 680 kg.
For visual comparison - a complex of radio equipment of the aircraft carrier "Legsington" (1944). On the left is the director Mk.37 (# 4). At the very top is the SG-type surface surveillance radar (# 13). Its mass is one and a half tons. Similar devices were found on any destroyer, cruiser or battleship. I will not describe each element, because everything is too obvious there.
To heighten the effect - analog computers in the combat information center of the cruiser "Belfast" (1939). Soviet microcircuits are resting.
The same story happens with weapons. The details were covered in a previous article. For example, a 64-round UVP Mk.41 with full ammunition (Tomahawks and long-range anti-aircraft missiles) weighs 230 tons.
For comparison: one tower of the Soviet cruiser pr. 26-bis (“Maxim Gorky”) weighed 247 tons. It should be taken into account that 145 tons fell on the rotating part located ABOVE the deck. It is easy to imagine how this deteriorated stability in comparison with the modern UVP, all elements of which are located deep in the underdeck space!
Critical readers will of course protest. In their opinion, the equipment on board a modern ship is accompanied by a kind of "mysterious" load item associated with a large number of communications, cables and wires.
So, dear ones, even if you wrap the cruiser up and down with optical fiber, like a cocoon, you will not compensate for the thousands of tons left after removing the 100-meter armor belts (a solid mass of steel, thick as a palm).
There is a paradox - there is no answer.
The solution of the problem (careful, kills the intrigue!)
The solution should be sought not in the load items, but in the layout of the ship.
The thesis about the lightness of modern radars and equipment is brilliantly confirmed by the very appearance of missile cruisers. It is thanks to the "lightness" of computer equipment, consoles, etc. "hi-tech" that designers can place equipment at any level of the superstructure without fear of breaking stability.
What do you see in the picture? That's right, a solid superstructure from side to side, as high as a multi-storey building.
While maintaining the same displacement and ballast values as the old cruisers, but without heavy weapons and armor, you can build a tower of any height.
Why are they doing that?
Designers are trying to increase the height of the antenna posts. Without any special recommendations and restrictions on this score, they choose the most obvious way - they increase the height of the superstructure, simultaneously using the resulting volumes and premises for the installation of new combat posts and fitness centers.
The negative effect of "windage" of bulky superstructures is compensated by additional ballast, since the designers have thousands of tons of load reserve in stock.
In general, Ticonderoga has everything correctly - the “mirrors” of the PAR are hanging right on the walls. The installation of the equipment and its maintenance is simplified, at any time you can get access to the antenna itself, simply by going up to the desired deck.
The nuclear “Orlan” grew uncontrollably upward (59 meters from the bottom to the top of the foremast). And its superstructure turned into a Mayan step pyramid, with radio equipment installed at different levels. The second pyramid shot up closer to the stern, finally turning the cruiser into a ritual temple of death.
26 thousand tons - dance what you want
“Zamvolt” is on the right path to success. A huge floating pyramid embodying all superstructures, mast structures, antenna posts and gas ducts. It is now a coherent whole to prevent the desecration of the sacred appearance of the stealth destroyer.
True, the number of launch silos was reduced to 80, which, even with two six-inch cannons, looks like a shame for an uber-ship with a total displacement of 14,000 tons. But how beautiful and modern!
In general, despite all the advantages of tall superstructures, this layout does not seem to be the most rational solution. Not only do the tall "Himalayas" increase the ship's visibility, but they simply "burn out" the stability margin, which could have been more profitably spent on installing additional systems (weapons, generators, constructive protection, etc.)
The only element for which the height of the antenna is critically important is the radar for detecting low-flying targets. Specialized radar, intently peering into the horizon line, over which a tiny dot can appear at any moment. And then the count will go for seconds.
The higher the radar is installed, the more precious seconds the air defense system has to intercept a low-flying missile.
For all other antennas, height is useful, but not critical.
Long-range radar works on targets in the stratosphere and in space orbits, so any innuendo of ± 10 meters does not matter to it. HEADLIGHTS can be safely placed on the walls of a low superstructure, like the destroyer Orly Burke (and even lower - after all, the Burke's main radar combines the functions of the NLC detection radar).
Satellite communication systems can work even at the very surface of the water.
Radio communication too.
Hence the question - if we need to raise only one radar to a height, then why fence the Himalayas, distorting the appearance of the destroyer?
The most obvious solution is the balloon. A regular balloon used in J-LENS, the Pentagon's new system, to protect critical objects from low-flying missiles.
The ship's radar balloon is much lighter and more compact than JLENS balloons.
NLC detection radars a priori operate at short ranges, limited by the radio horizon. That is why they have a low energy potential and small size. In fact, they coincide in size and purpose with the AN / APS-147 radar of the MH-60R multipurpose helicopter. Moreover, the creators of Romeo themselves have repeatedly stated that their system can be used for early detection of low-flying missiles and the integration of helicopters into the air defense / missile defense system of Aegis destroyers.
Bump in the lower part of the cockpit - AN / APY-147 fairing
This is the kind of radar that needs to be raised above the water, to a height of at least 100 meters.
And it will be a breakthrough!
A) The range of the radio horizon will increase to 40 kilometers (instead of the current 15-20 kilometers), which will bring the naval air defense / missile defense systems to a completely new level.
B) The layout will change, there will be no need for super-high cumbersome superstructures. With obvious implications for other articles of the load.
Increase your ammunition. Or install additional generators to provide energy for the railguns and strategic missile defense radars located on board the destroyer.
Or put on your armor. Without increasing the ship's displacement!
I do not agree - criticize, criticize - offer, offer - do, do - answer!"
- Sergey Pavlovich Korolev.
Critics of the above theory will point out possible difficulties with the placement of equipment and combat posts, which, although they have an insignificant mass, often require large volumes.
The components of the S-400 ground system are located on several mobile chassis. And it's hard to believe that the same equipment and control cabin will not be able to fit on a 180-meter warship.
As you know, the figure with the largest area for a given perimeter is a circle (in three-dimensional space, the sphere has the largest volume).
Even if additional volumes are required, they can always be obtained without increasing the ship's displacement. Simply by increasing the width of the hull by a couple of meters, reducing its length by the required value (10-20 m, these are conditional). This will slightly affect the propulsive characteristics. The speed of the destroyer will decrease by 1, 5-2 knots, but in the era of radars and high-precision weapons, this does not matter.
In general, life is an unpredictable thing. Where each task can have several alternative solutions.
Highly protected missile cruiser rank 1
