This article responds to comments left by readers during the debate about the need for constructive protection in the navy.
You prove what you want here, only no country in the world builds armored ships. And it won't build it in the foreseeable future
“Why encourage a way of waging war that does nothing for a people who already have supremacy at sea, and who, if successful, could lose that supremacy,” said Admiral Lord Jervis of a submarine designed by Robert Fulton.
The Yankees are already running to write off their 84 "Aegis" and lay in their place modern "armored vehicles". The version with the "conspiracy of admirals" does not pretend to be the highest truth, but it is at least logical and has a real historical precedent. With what apprehension the British once rejected the idea of submarine warfare! What is not the answer to all skeptics - why no one is working on the security of modern ships.
The appearance of a highly protected battleship will produce an effect similar to that of the Dreadnought. All missile destroyers of NATO countries will instantly turn out to be "second-rate" ships. All tactics and arsenals of existing anti-ship weapons will become obsolete at once. And if Russia had pulled ahead with such a project, it would have raised the prestige of our fleet and overnight made the surface component of the Navy the strongest in the world.
However, first things first …
The era of armor and steam is long over. Whatever battleship fans write there, battleships are a thing of the past
The battleship is an ugly, deep-skinned, thick-skinned monster. But every feat of battleships, battleships and heavy cruisers of the WWII era is an example of the highest combat resilience.
Of interest are not so much the battleships themselves, as their battle "scars". Type of ammunition used, place of impact, list of recorded damage.
As a rule, ammunition of monstrous power was used to destroy them, capable of tearing a modern ship to shreds. However, the ships of the past eras withstood the blow and only in rare cases had serious problems.
Unfortunately, most readers do not pay any attention to this, starting to discuss the Gauss cannons of the dreadnoughts of the future.
What have the guns to do with it? It's about constructive protection!
Regardless of what the armor fans might say, the highly defended ships stopped building immediately after World War II
The reasons are given as examples (answers are given in brackets):
- nuclear weapons (yes, to hell with two, all tests, on the contrary, showed the ships' exceptional resistance to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons);
- rocket weapons (where armor-piercing shells could not cope, there is no one to scare missiles. In overcoming armor, speed and mass do not decide anything. The main thing is mechanical strength, which rockets have never had);
- the development of aviation (in the mid-50s. reactive the attack aircraft could lift a couple of tons of bombs and fill the ship with them from bow to stern. It was impossible to prevent this: the anti-aircraft missiles were too imperfect, the air defense of the ships remained at the level of the war years).
In fact, with the end of the war, shipbuilding technologies were frozen for 10 years. When serial construction was re-established, it turned out that in the era of rocket weapons, large ships were useless. Missiles and electronics fit easily into a hull with a displacement of less than 10 thousand tons. Further, the flywheel spun, the designers began to lighten the ships as much as possible. Indeed, in the case of the Third World War, they will not last long anyway: high-precision missiles hit the target from the first shot. And in general, ships are unlikely to have to fight …
However, they had to fight. And it was a shame to lose a destroyer from one unexploded missile. Or from a bag of solarium with fertilizers. This is where the shame of the designers is - the billion dollar super destroyer is completely out of action, having lost 1/5 of the crew (undermining the USS Cole)
The number of those killed on the "Eagle" was 25 people (out of 900 on board). Now let my opponents prove to the Eagle crew that armor is an unnecessary whim
The Eagle itself was completely destroyed. It was hit by over 50 shells of large and medium caliber (those who wish can calculate the equivalent of modern missiles). However, this does not make any sense. If the ship, by the will of circumstances, allows itself to be shot with impunity for many hours, then no armor will help it.
Modern ammunition breaks through any obstacle. The eternal dispute "shield vs sword" ended in an unconditional victory of the means of attack. Covering yourself with armor is useless
This is brilliantly proved by the continuous growth of the mass of ground armored vehicles (example: "Kurganets", 25 tons - twice as heavy as the armored personnel carriers of the Soviet period).
A ship is not a tank. Despite the enormous size of the citadel, it is easier to defend it than an armored vehicle.
The booked volume of the tank is only a few cubic meters. meters. For a ship, this figure is tens of thousands of cubic meters!
That's why ships are not afraid of cumulative ammunition. In the first compartment from the side, there is no ammunition, critical systems and mechanisms. And in front there is a developed system of anti-fragmentation bulkheads that will absorb and stop any fragment and penetrator.
The purpose of constructive protection is to pervert the design of armor-piercing ammunition to such an extent that even if the protection is broken through, the remaining warhead could not inflict significant damage to the ship. You can fence multi-stage warheads, install boosters and cumulative pre-charges, as a result, only solid scrap will fly into the depths of the hull, tearing off several distribution boards and cutting sparks when meeting the bulkheads.
Any ship (even a destroyer) is monstrously large compared to everything we are used to encountering in everyday life. Hit him with a crowbar, he won't notice
On the other hand, you can increase the initial mass of the warhead so that the "scrap" contains at least some amount of explosives (while maintaining high mechanical strength and the coefficient of filling a few%). Alas, in this case, the launch mass of the rocket will exceed all permissible limits, reducing the number of possible carriers to several pieces. And the dimensions and EPR of such a missile will delight the anti-aircraft gunners.
It is much more profitable to spend reserves not on an array of ceramics and metal, but on active means of protection.
As evidenced by the cruiser "Chancellorsville", pierced by a drone. The Aegis system failed to intercept the BQM-74 target, which imitated a subsonic low-flying anti-ship missile system, despite the absence of a warhead, the ship suffered $ 15 million in damage.
Now experts will come and explain that Aegis knew everything, and that the “human factor” spoiled everything. They saw - they didn't report, they reported, but to the wrong one, they pressed, but the wrong button … What the hell is the difference, these are the problems of Aegis itself. The main result is a broken superstructure.
Here is another hero, the frigate "Stark" (1987). We are arguing here now, and there 37 people turned into minced meat.
Of course, it was just a frigate. If in the place of "Stark" a full-fledged cruiser "Chancellorsville" with the "Aegis" system … that would be 137 dead. Charred chest. And a bottle of rum.
Active means of protection do not cope with the task at hand.
Sheffield, Stark, Israeli Hanit (2006), Chancellorsville (2013). Every time, there is a reason why the rocket breaks through to the target.
Wherein, even noticing danger in time and shooting down a missile, active means do not guarantee peace of mind.
On February 10, 1983, the frigate "Entrim" almost died during firing practice. His six-barreled anti-aircraft gun riddled the target, which crashed into the water 500 meters from the side. But then the laws of drama intervened. The flaming wreckage of the drone ricocheted off the water and after a couple of seconds overtook the frigate. The superstructure was breached and a fire started. Fortunately, the losses among the crew were low - only one dead.
A warship must be prepared for the fact that sooner or later it will come under attack.
Impossible to protect radars and external antenna devices
Everything in this life is possible, there would be a desire.
For example, "Zamvolt" with retractable antennas. It will not be possible to destroy them all at once: they cannot be used simultaneously for reasons of electromagnetic compatibility.
Here are the fixed HEADLIGHTS, mounted on the walls of the superstructure and makeshift "prismatic" masts. To destroy all four antennas, you will need hit the ship four times from different directions.
Composite radio-transparent fairings - for additional protection of the antenna fabric from small fragments and blast waves. Moreover, the active HEADLIGHT remains operational even when part of its receiving-transmitting modules is “knocked out”. And modern microcircuits (unlike gyroscopes and precision mechanics) are extremely resistant to strong vibrations. It is possible to destroy such an antenna only with a direct hit.
Perhaps it will be a revelation for someone, but with the loss of the radar, only air defense will suffer. All other ship functions will be retained in full. To launch "Harpoons" and "Calibers" at targets beyond the horizon (further 20-30 km) radars are not needed. By virtue of the laws of nature, target designation is issued only with the help of external means (aircraft, satellites, reconnaissance data). Despite the fact that a satellite phone can be in the pocket of every officer (I exaggerate, but the essence is clear).
"Knock out" radars, suppress air defense, then fill the helpless ship with conventional bombs
An air force would be required to carry out such an operation. And while the enemies will "suppress" its air defense, the protected ship will complete the assigned task. And there already help will be pulled up …
One torpedo under the keel - and goodbye
The number of combat-ready submarines around the world two orders of magnitude less the number of combat aircraft.
The main threat is posed by air attack weapons.
No matter how well protected the ship is, after the battle it will need expensive repairs
Better to immediately burn out and sink, together with the crew.
The booking will affect the size of the ship
Modern destroyers have already grown to 15 thousand tons. Against this background, a reasonable increase in constructive protection will go almost unnoticed.
Despite the fact that international treaties limiting the displacement of warships are absent in our time.
Together with security, the cost will also increase
Isn't the ship's high-tech hardware really worth it? (as well as human lives)
How much will the cost of the ship increase with the addition of structural protection? Against the backdrop of superradars, gas turbines, reactors and military information centers.
After all, it is known that the Orly Burke hull itself costs less than the Aegis system installed on the destroyer.
What to make armor out of? Titanium? Or rhodium alloys?
Krupp armor steel with a cemented top layer.
Ceramic and Kevlar are suitable for internal splinter-proof bulkheads.
Those who argue that bombs can easily penetrate soil and reinforced concrete do not understand the catastrophic difference between soil and high-grade armor steel. Each of us can drive a shovel into the ground for the entire tray - but try to leave at least a scratch on the "skin" of the tank! As well as hammering a nail into a rail (although a nail gun will easily drive them into the panels of houses).
How much labor it takes to bend a 5-inch sheet of metal
Wow, 100 years ago, dreadnoughts with 12-inch armor were massively built, but now they cannot. Despite the progress in the field of metalworking and increasing labor productivity.
And how many countries can highly secure ships afford?
How many countries have ocean-going fleets?
Just like at one time only six of the most developed countries in the world had real battle ships.
What would such a ship look like?
Endless variety of layout options, with the use of modern technology.
Thickness-graded outer protection (3-5 inches). Integration of armor plates into the hull power set. "Iron-like" shapes, reminiscent of the overseas "Zamvolt": rational angles of installation of armor + a radical reduction in the area of the upper deck. Developed system of internal anti-splinter bulkheads. The listed measures to protect external antenna posts.
Full displacement - about 20 thousand tons.
The composition of the armament is the same as that of the three Berk destroyers.
Anyone who does not believe in the possibility of building such a well-armed and protected ship in the specified dimensions - please contact the creators of "Queen Elizabeth" (an ultimatum dreadnought of the 1912 model) or, to the articles of the analogue load - TKR of the "Des Moines" type (1944) …
What will such a ship do?
Enter without fear into zones of military conflicts, patrol in “hot spots” (the coast of Syria, the Persian Gulf). In the event of war, to act where an ordinary ship will die almost immediately. In peacetime - to cool down the violent heads of enemies with your appearance. Get new allies, demonstrating the power and technical superiority of the country under the flag of which this masterpiece is flying.
Why hasn't it been built yet?
See point # 1.
