In 1962, there was a high-profile emergency on the cruiser Long Beach. During a firing practice in the presence of high-ranking officials of the state, among whom was President Kennedy himself, the latest nuclear-powered missile cruiser was unable to intercept the air target. Annoyed Kennedy inquired about the Long Beach weapons. Upon learning that the cruiser is completely devoid of artillery (there are only 4 missile systems), he, as a former sailor, recommended adding a pair of universal caliber guns.
So, the bold idea of building a ship with a purely rocket weapon collapsed. Kennedy was killed shortly thereafter, and the missile cruiser Long Beach has since carried two 127mm cannons on deck. Ironically, over 30 years of service, the cruiser never used its artillery, but regularly fired missiles. And, every time, he hit the target.
On the other side of the ocean, similar processes took place. Immediately after the death of Joseph Stalin, in 1953 the construction of heavy cruisers of Project 82 "Stalingrad" (full displacement - 43 thousand tons) was stopped. The command of the Navy, including the legendary Admiral N. G. Kuznetsov, unequivocally spoke out against these ships: complex, expensive, and, by that time, already morally obsolete. The estimated cruising range of the "Stalingrad" did not exceed 5,000 miles at a 15-knot speed. For all other parameters, the heavy cruiser was 10-20% inferior to foreign counterparts, many questions were raised by its anti-aircraft armament. Even the excellent 305 mm guns could not save the situation - the sea battle threatened to turn into a second Tsushima.
However, until the mid-1950s, the USSR did not have real technical capabilities to create a powerful ocean-going nuclear missile fleet and was forced to build ships with conventional artillery and torpedo-mine weapons. In the period from 1949 to 1955, the shipyard of the USSR Navy was replenished with fourteen Project 68-bis artillery cruisers (Sverdlov class). Originally created for defensive operations in coastal waters, these 14 ships soon turned out to be one of the few effective means of the Soviet Navy for delivering paralyzing strikes against aircraft carrier strike groups of the "potential enemy". In moments of aggravation of the international situation, the cruisers pr. 68-bis were tightly "glued" to the American AUG, threatening at any moment to unleash hundreds of kilograms of deadly metal on the decks of aircraft carriers from their twelve 152 mm guns. At the same time, the cruiser itself could not pay attention to the fire of 76 mm and 127 mm guns of American escort cruisers - thick armor reliably protected the crew and mechanisms from such primitive ammunition.
Among fans of naval history, there is an opinion that the construction of three heavy cruisers of the "Stalingrad" class instead of 14 "68-bis" could significantly increase the potential of the USSR Navy - nine 305 mm guns of a heavy cruiser could sink an attack aircraft carrier with several volleys, and their range of fire was times exceeded the firing range of 152 mm guns. Alas, the reality turned out to be more prosaic - the cruisers of the project 68-bis reached 8000 nautical miles at an operational-economic speed of 16-18 knots - enough to operate in any area of the World Ocean (as noted earlier, the estimated cruising range of the "Stalingrad" was almost two times less: 5000 miles at 15 knots). Moreover, time did not allow waiting - it was required to saturate the Soviet Navy with new ships as soon as possible. The first "68-bis" entered service in 1952, while the construction of "Stalingrad" could be completed only by the end of the 50s.
Of course, in the event of a real combat clash, 14 artillery cruisers also did not guarantee success - while tracking the aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy, a swarm of carrier-based attack aircraft and bombers hovered over the Soviet ships, ready to pounce on their victims from all directions on signal. From the experience of World War II, it is known that when an aircraft attacked a cruiser similar in design to the "68-bis", from the moment the attack began to the moment when the ship's masts were hidden in the waves, a time interval of 8-15 minutes passed. The cruiser was losing its combat effectiveness in the first seconds of the attack. The air defense capabilities of the 68-bis remained at the same level, and the speed of the jet aircraft increased significantly (the rate of climb of the piston Avenger is 4 m / s; the rate of climb of the jet Skyhawk is 40 m / s).
It would seem that it is a completely losing alignment. The optimism of the Soviet admirals was based on the fact that a single successful hit could paralyze the AUG - suffice it to recall the terrible fire on the deck of an aircraft carrier from an accidentally fired 127 mm NURS. The cruiser and its 1270 crew will, of course, die a heroic death, but the AUG will significantly lose its combat capability.
Fortunately, all of these theories have remained unconfirmed. Cruisers "68-bis" timely appeared in the vastness of the ocean and honestly served 40 years in the Navy of the USSR and the Navy of Indonesia. Even when the basis of the Soviet Navy was made up of nuclear submarine missile carriers and space targeting systems, the old cruisers were still used as control ships, and, if necessary, could take a battalion of marines on their decks and support the landing troops with fire.
Inglourious scum
During the Cold War, the NATO countries adopted the aircraft carrier concept for the development of the fleet, which brilliantly showed itself during the Second World War. All the main tasks, including strikes against surface and ground targets, were assigned to aircraft carriers - carrier-based aircraft could hit objects at a distance of hundreds of kilometers from the squadron, which gave sailors exceptional opportunities to control the sea space. Ships of other types performed mainly escort functions or were used as anti-submarine weapons.
The big guns and thick armor of battleships had no place in the new hierarchy. In 1960, Great Britain scrapped its only battleship Vanguard. In the United States in 1962, relatively new battleships of the South Dakota type were decommissioned. The only exception was the four Iowa-class battleships, two of which took part in the operation against Iraq. The last half century, "Iowa" periodically appeared on the sea, so that, after shelling the coast of Korea, Vietnam or Lebanon, disappear again, falling asleep on long-term mothballing. Did their creators see such a purpose for their ships?
The nuclear missile era has changed all ideas about familiar things. Of the entire composition of the Navy, only strategic missile submarines could effectively operate in a global nuclear war. Otherwise, the navy lost its significance and retrained to perform police functions in local wars. The aircraft carriers also did not escape this fate - over the past half century, they steadfastly retained the image of "aggressors against third world countries", capable only of fighting the Papuans. In fact, this is a powerful naval weapon capable of surveying 100 thousand square meters in an hour. kilometers of the ocean surface and delivering strikes many hundreds of kilometers from the side of the ship, was created for a completely different war. But, fortunately, their capabilities remained unclaimed.
The reality turned out to be even more discouraging: while the superpowers were preparing for a world nuclear war, improving the anti-nuclear protection of ships and dismantling the last layers of armor, the number of local conflicts grew around the globe. While strategic submarines were hiding under the ice of the Arctic, conventional destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers performed their usual functions: they provided "no-fly zones", carried out a blockade and de-blockade of sea communications, provided fire support for ground forces, played the role of an arbiter in international disputes, forcing by their presence alone " disputants "to the world.
The culmination of these events was the Falklands War - Great Britain regained control over the islands lost in the Atlantic 12 thousand kilometers from its shores. The decrepit, weakened empire showed that no one has the right to challenge it, thereby strengthening its international authority. Despite the presence of nuclear weapons in the UK, the conflict took place on the scale of modern naval combat - with missile destroyers, tactical aircraft, conventional bombs and precision weapons. And the navy played a key role in this war. Two British aircraft carriers - "Hermes" and "Invincible" especially distinguished themselves. In relation to them, the word "aircraft carriers" must be taken in quotation marks - both ships had limited characteristics, a small air group of vertical take-off aircraft and did not carry AWACS aircraft. But even these replicas of real aircraft carriers and two dozen subsonic Sea Harriers became a formidable obstacle for the Argentine missile-carrying aircraft, preventing the Royal Navy from being completely sunk.
Atomic killer
In the mid-70s, US Navy specialists began to return to the idea of a heavy cruiser capable of operating off enemy shores without the support of its own aviation - a real ocean bandit capable of dealing with any possible enemy. This is how the project of the atomic strike cruiser CSGN (cruiser, strike, guided missle, nuclear-powered) appeared - a large (full displacement of 18,000 tons) ship with powerful missile weapons and (attention!) Large-caliber artillery. In addition, it was planned to install the Aegis system on it for the first time in the American fleet.
It was planned to include in the armament complex of the promising CSGN cruiser:
- 2 inclined launchers Mk.26 Ammunition - 128 anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles.
- 2 armored launchers ABL. Ammunition - 8 "Tomahawks"
- 2 launchers Mk.141 Ammunition - 8 anti-ship missiles "Harpoon"
- 203 mm highly automated 8”/ 55 Mk.71 gun with the awkward name MCLWG. A promising naval gun had a rate of fire of 12 rounds / min, while the maximum firing range was 29 kilometers. The mass of the installation is 78 tons (taking into account the magazine for 75 shots). Calculation - 6 people.
- 2 helicopters or VTOL aircraft
Of course, nothing like this has appeared in reality. The 203 mm gun was not effective enough compared to the 127 mm Mk.45 gun - the accuracy and reliability of the MCLWG turned out to be unsatisfactory, while the light 22-ton Mk.45 had 2 times the rate of fire and, in general, there was no need for a new large-caliber artillery system It was.
The CSGN cruiser was finally destroyed by the nuclear power plant - after several years of operation of the first nuclear cruisers, it became clear that the YSU, even if we do not consider the price aspect, significantly spoils the characteristics of the cruiser - a sharp increase in displacement, lower combat survivability. Modern gas turbine installations easily provide a cruising range of 6-7 thousand miles at an operational and economic speed of 20 knots. - more from warships is not required (under normal conditions of the development of the Navy, ships of the Northern Fleet should not go to Yokohama, the Pacific Fleet should go there). Moreover, the autonomy of a cruiser is determined not only by fuel reserves. Simple truths, it has already been said about them many times.
In short, the CSGN project bent, giving way to the Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers. Among conspiracy theorists, there is an opinion that CSGN is a CIA special operation designed to direct the Soviet Navy along the wrong path of building the Eagles. This is unlikely to be the case, given that all the elements of the supercruiser are somehow embodied in reality.
Rocket dreadnought
In discussions at the Military Review forum, the idea of a highly protected missile and artillery cruiser was repeatedly discussed. Indeed, in the absence of confrontation at sea, such a ship has a number of advantages in local wars. First, the missile dreadnought is an excellent platform for hundreds of cruise missiles. Secondly, everything that is within a radius of 50 km (surface ships, fortifications on the coast) can be swept away by the fire of its 305 mm guns (twelve-inch caliber is the optimal combination of power, rate of fire and installation mass). Thirdly, a unique level of protection, unattainable for most modern ships (only nuclear attack aircraft carriers can afford 150-200 mm armor).
The most paradoxical is that all these weapons (cruise missiles, systems, air defense, powerful artillery, helicopters, armor, radio electronics), according to preliminary calculations, easily fit into the body of a Queen Elizabeth superdreadnought, laid down exactly 100 years ago - in October 1912!
To accommodate 800 vertical launchers of the Mk.41 type, an area of at least 750 square meters is required. m. For comparison: two aft towers of the main caliber "Queen Elizabeth" occupy 1100 square meters. m. The weight of 800 UVP is comparable to the weight of heavily armored twin-gun turrets with 381 mm guns, along with their barbets and armored charging cellars. Instead of sixteen 152 mm medium-caliber guns, 6-8 anti-aircraft missile-artillery systems "Kortik" or "Broadsword" can be installed. The caliber of the bow artillery will be reduced to 305 mm - again a solid economy in displacement. Over the past 100 years, there has been tremendous progress in the field of power plants and automation - all of which should entail a reduction in the displacement of the "rocket dreadnought".
Of course, with such metamorphoses, the appearance of the ship, its metacentric height and load items will completely change. To bring the external forms and maintenance of the ship to normal will require a long painstaking work of a whole scientific team. But the main thing is that there is not a single fundamental prohibition of such "modernization".
The only question that stands squarely is what the price of such a ship will be. I offer the readers an original plot move: try to evaluate the Queen Elizabeth-2012 “missile dreadnought” in comparison with the “Arleigh Burke” -type missile destroyer, and we will do it not on the basis of boring exchange rates, but using open source data + a drop of healthy logic. The result, I promise, will be quite funny.
So, Aegis destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class, sub-series IIA. Full displacement - approx. 10,000 tons. Armament:
- 96 cells UVP Mk.41
- one 127 mm gun Mk. 45
- 2 anti-aircraft self-defense complexes "Falanx", 2 automatic cannons "Bushmaster" (caliber 25 mm)
- 2 torpedo tubes of 324 mm caliber
- helipad, hangar for 2 helicopters, store for 40 aviation ammunition
The cost of Arleigh Burke averages $ 1.5 billion. This colossal figure is determined by three almost equal components:
500 million - the cost of the steel hull.
500 million - the cost of the power plant, mechanisms and equipment of the ship.
500 million - the cost of the Aegis system and weapons.
1. Housing. According to preliminary estimates, the mass of the steel structures of the Arleigh Burk hull is in the range of 5, 5 - 6 thousand tons.
The mass of the hull and armor of the Queen Elizabeth-class battleship is well known - 17,000 tons. Those. requires three times more metal than a small destroyer. From the point of view of banal erudition and incomprehensible eternal truth, the empty box of the Queen Elizabeth hull costs like a modern destroyer of the Arleigh Burke class - $ 1.5 billion. And not a penny less.
(To this still need to take into account the reduction in the cost of building "Arleigh Burke" due to large-scale construction, but this calculation does not pretend to be mathematical accuracy).
2. Power plant, mechanisms and equipment.
Arlie Burke is powered by 4 LM2500 gas turbines with a total capacity of 80,000 hp. Also, there are three emergency running gas turbines manufactured by Allison.
The initial capacity of the Queen Elizabeth power plant was 75 thousand hp. - this was enough to ensure a speed of 24 knots. Of course, in modern conditions this is an unsatisfactory result - for increasing the maximum speed of the ship to 30 knots. twice as powerful power plant is required.
The Queen Elizabeth originally carried 250 tons of fuel - the British superdreadnought could crawl 5,000 miles at 12 knots.
On board the destroyer "Arleigh Burke" 1,500 tons of JP-5 kerosene. This is enough to provide a cruising range of 4500 20 knots. progress.
It is quite clear that Queen Elizabeth 2012 will require twice as much fuel to maintain the Arleigh Burke's performance. twice as many tanks, pumps and fuel lines.
Also, a multiple increase in the size of the ship, the number of weapons and equipment on board will lead to the crew of "Queen Elizabeth - 2012" will at least double in comparison with the "Arleigh Burke".
Without further ado, we will increase the initial cost of the power plant, mechanisms and equipment of the missile destroyer exactly twice - the cost of the “stuffing” of the “missile dreadnought” will amount to $ 1 billion. Anyone else have any doubts about this?
3. "Aegis" and weapons
The most interesting chapter. The cost of the Aegis system, including all the ship's electronic systems, is $ 250 million. The remaining $ 250 million is the cost of the destroyer's weapons. As for the Aegis system of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, they have a modification with limited characteristics, for example, there are only three target illumination radars. For example, there are four of them on the Ticonderoga cruiser.
Logically, all Arleigh Burk weapons can be divided into two main components: Mk.41 launch cells and other systems (artillery, anti-aircraft self-defense systems, jammers, torpedo tubes, equipment for servicing helicopters). I think it is possible to assume that both components are of equal value, i.e. 250 million / 2 = 125 million dollars - in any case, this will have little effect on the final result.
So, the cost of 96 launch cells is $ 125 million. In the case of the Queen Elizabeth 2012 missile dreadnought, the number of cells increases by 8 times - up to 800 UVP. Accordingly, their cost will increase 8 times - up to $ 1 billion. What are your objections to this?
Main caliber artillery. The Mk.45 five-inch light naval gun weighs 22 tons. The 12-inch Mk.8 naval gun used on ships during the Second World War weighed 55 tons. That is, even without taking into account the technological difficulties and labor intensity of production, this system requires 2.5 times more metal. For Queen Elizabeth 2012, four of these are required.
Auxiliary systems. On "Arleigh Burke" there are two "Phalanxes" and two "Bushmasters", on "missile dreadnought" 8 much more sophisticated missile and artillery complex "Kortik". The number of SBROC launchers for shooting dipole reflectors has increased two to three times. Aviation equipment will remain the same - 2 helicopters, a hangar and a landing site, a fuel tank and an ammunition store.
I believe it is possible to increase the initial value of this property eightfold - from $ 125 million to $ 1 billion.
That, perhaps, is all. Hopefully the reader will be able to properly appreciate this eerie hybrid "Queen Elizabeth 2012", which is a combination of an old British ship and Russian-American weapons systems. The meaning is literally the following, from the point of view of elementary mathematics, the cost of a "missile dreadnought" with 800 air defense systems, armor and artillery will be at least $ 4.75 billion, which is comparable to the cost of a nuclear aircraft carrier. At the same time, the "rocket dreadnought" will not have even a fraction of the capabilities of the aircraft carrier. Probably, this is precisely the refusal to build such a "wunderwaffe" in all countries of the world.
