The Legend of the Blazing Walls
Cloudy morning on May 4, 1982. South Atlantic. A pair of Argentine Air Force Super-Etandars sweep over the lead-gray ocean, nearly breaking the crests of the waves. A few minutes ago, a Neptune radar reconnaissance aircraft spotted two destroyer-class targets in this square, by all indications a British squadron formation. It's time! The planes make a "slide" and turn on their radars. Another moment - and two fire-tail "Exocets" rushed towards their targets …
The commander of the destroyer Sheffield was engaged in thoughtful negotiations with London via the Skynet satellite channel. To eliminate interference, it was ordered to turn off all electronic means, including the search radar. Suddenly the officers from the bridge noticed a long fiery "spit" flying towards the ship from a southerly direction.
The Exocet struck the side of the Sheffield, flew through the galley and collapsed in the engine room. The 165-kilogram warhead did not explode, but a running anti-ship missile engine set fire to fuel leaking from damaged tanks. The fire quickly engulfed the central part of the ship, the synthetic decoration of the premises blazed hot, the superstructure, made of aluminum-magnesium alloys, caught fire from the unbearable heat. After 6 days of agony, the charred wreck of the Sheffield sank.
In fact, this is a curiosity and a fatal coincidence. The Argentines are incredibly lucky, while the British sailors have shown miracles of carelessness and, frankly, idiocy. That only is the order to turn off the radars in the zone of military conflict. Things were not in the best way for the Argentines - the AWACS aircraft "Neptune" 5 times (!) Tried to establish radar contact with British ships, but each time it failed because of the failure of the onboard radar (P-2 "Neptune" was developed in the 40s and by 1982 was flying junk). Finally, from a distance of 200 km, he managed to establish the coordinates of the British compound. The only one who has preserved face in this story was the frigate "Plymouth" - it was to him that the second "Exocet" was intended. But the small boat spotted the anti-ship missile in time and disappeared under the "umbrella" of dipole reflectors.
Designers in pursuit of efficiency have reached the point of absurdity - the destroyer is sinking from one unexploded missile ?! Unfortunately no. On May 17, 1987, the US Navy frigate "Stark" received on board two similar anti-ship missiles "Exocet" from the Iraqi "Mirage". The warhead worked normally, the ship lost its speed and 37 crew members. Nevertheless, despite heavy damage, "Stark" retained its buoyancy and returned to service after a long repair.
Seydlitz's Incredible Odyssey
The last volleys of the Battle of Jutland died down, and Hochseeflotte, hidden behind the horizon, had long ago included the battle cruiser Seydlitz in the list of victims. British heavy cruisers did a good job on the ship, then Seidlitz came under hurricane fire from super-dreadnoughts of the Queen Elizabeth type, receiving 20 hits with shells of calibers 305, 343 and 381 mm. Is this a lot? with a mass of 870 kg (!), it contained 52 kg of explosives. Initial speed - 2 speed of sound. As a result, "Seydlitz" lost 3 gun turrets, all superstructures were severely mutilated, the electricity went out. Particularly hit the machine team - the shells tore apart the coal pits and interrupted the steam lines, as a result the stokers and mechanics worked in the dark, suffocating with a nasty mixture of hot steam and thick coal dust. By evening, a torpedo hit the side. The bow was completely buried in the waves, it was necessary to flood the compartments in the stern - the weight of the water that entered the interior reached 5300 tons, a quarter of the normal displacement! German sailors brought plasters to the underwater holes, reinforced the bulkheads deformed by the pressure of water with boards. The mechanics managed to commission several boilers. Turbines started working, and the half-submerged Seydlitz crawled aft forward to its native shores.
The gyrocompass was smashed, the navigational house was destroyed, and the maps on the bridge were covered in blood. Unsurprisingly, there was a grinding sound under the Seydlitz's belly at night. After several attempts, the cruiser slid off the shallows on its own, but in the morning the Seydlitz, which was poorly kept on course, again hit the stones. Barely alive from fatigue, people this time saved the ship. For 57 hours there was a continuous struggle for life.
What saved "Seydlitz" from death? The answer is obvious - the crew is brilliantly trained. Reservations did not help - 381 mm shells pierced the 300 mm main armor belt like foil.
Payback for betrayal
The Italian navy moved briskly south to intern in Malta. The war for the Italian sailors was left behind, and even the appearance of German aircraft could not spoil their mood - it is unrealistic to get into the battleship from such a height.
The Mediterranean cruise ended unexpectedly - at about 4:00 pm, the battleship Roma shuddered from an aerial bomb dropped with amazing accuracy (in fact, the world's first corrected aerial bomb "Fritz X"). High-tech ammunition weighing 1.5 tons pierced through the armored deck 112 mm thick, all the lower decks and exploded in the water under the ship (someone will breathe a sigh of relief - "Lucky!", But it is worth recalling that water is an incompressible liquid - shock a wave of 320 kg of explosives broke the bottom of the "Roma", causing the boiler rooms to flood). After 10 minutes, the second "Fritz X" caused the detonation of seven hundred tons of ammunition for the bow turrets of the main caliber, killing 1,253 people.
Found a superweapon capable of sinking a battleship with a displacement of 45,000 tons in 10 minutes !? Alas, everything is not so simple.
On September 16, 1943, a similar joke with the British battleship "Warspite" (class "Queen Elizabeth") failed - a three-time hit by "Fritz X" did not lead to the death of the dreadnought. Worspeight melancholy took 5,000 tons of water and went for repairs. 9 people became victims of three explosions.
On September 11, 1943, during the shelling of Solerno, the American light cruiser "Savannah" fell under the distribution. The cruiser with a displacement of 12,000 tons withstood the hit of the German monster. "Fritz" broke through the roof of tower number 3, went through all the decks and exploded in the turret compartment, knocking out the bottom of the "Savannah". The partial detonation of the ammunition and the ensuing fire claimed the lives of 197 crew members. Despite serious damage, three days later the cruiser crawled under its own power (!) To Malta, from where it went to Philadelphia for repairs.
What conclusions can be drawn from this chapter? In the structure of the ship, regardless of the thickness of the armor, there are critical elements, the defeat of which can lead to quick and inevitable death. Here, how the card will fall. As for the deceased "Roma" - truly Italian battleships were unlucky either under the Italian, or under the British, or under the Soviet flag (the battleship "Novorossiysk" - aka "Giulio Cesare").
Aladdin's magic lamp
Morning October 12, 2000, Gulf of Aden, Yemen. A dazzling flash illuminated the bay for a moment, and a moment later a heavy roar scared the flamingos standing in the water.
Two martyrs gave their lives in the Holy War with the kafirs, ramming the destroyer "Cole" (USS Cole DDG-67) in a motor boat. The explosion of a hellish machine filled with 200 … 300 kg of explosives tore apart the side of the destroyer, a fiery whirlwind rushed through the compartments and cockpits of the ship, turning everything in its path into a bloody vinaigrette. Having penetrated into the engine room, the blast wave tore apart the housings of the gas turbines, the destroyer lost its speed. A fire broke out, which we managed to cope with only in the evening. 17 sailors became victims, 39 more were injured.
Two weeks later, the Cole was loaded onto the Norwegian heavy transport MV Blue Marlin and sent to the United States for repairs.
Hmm … at one time, the "Savannah", identical in size to the "Cole", kept its course, despite much more serious damage. Explanation of the paradox: the equipment of modern ships has become more fragile. The General Electric power plant of 4 compact LM2500 gas turbines looks frivolous against the backdrop of the Savannah's main power plant, which consists of 8 huge boilers and 4 Parsons steam turbines. For cruisers of the Second World War, oil and its heavy fractions served as fuel. "Cole" (like all ships equipped with GTU LM2500) uses … Jet Propellant-5 aviation kerosene.
Does this mean that a modern warship is worse than an ancient cruiser? Of course, this is not the case. Their striking power is incomparable - an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer can launch cruise missiles at a range of 1500 … 2500 km, fire at targets in low-earth orbit and monitor the situation hundreds of miles from the ship. New capabilities and equipment required additional volumes: to maintain the original displacement, the reservation was sacrificed. Maybe in vain?
Extensive path
The experience of naval battles in the recent past shows that even heavy armor cannot be guaranteed to protect a ship. Today, the means of destruction have evolved even more, therefore, it makes no sense to install armor protection (or its equivalent differentiated armor) with a thickness of less than 100 mm - it will not become an obstacle to anti-ship missiles. It seems that 5 … 10 centimeters of additional protection should reduce damage, because anti-ship missiles will no longer penetrate deep into the ship. Alas, this is a misconception - during the Second World War, bombs often pierced several decks in a row (including armored ones), detonating in the holds or even in the water under the bottom! Those. the damage will be serious in any case, and the installation of a 100 mm reservation is a useless undertaking.
And if you install 200 mm armor on a missile cruiser-class ship? In this case, the cruiser's hull is provided with a very high level of protection (not a single Western subsonic anti-ship missile system of the Exocet or Harpoon type is capable of penetrating such an armor plate). Vitality will increase and sinking our hypothetical cruiser will be a challenge. But! The ship does not have to be sunk, it is enough to disable its fragile electronic systems and damage the weapon (at one time the legendary battleship Eagle received from 75 to 150 hits with 3, 6 and 12 inch Japanese shells. - gun turrets and rangefinder posts were smashed and burned by high-explosive shells).
Hence an important conclusion: even if heavy armor is used, external antenna devices will remain defenseless. If the superstructures are hit, the ship is guaranteed to turn into an unusable pile of metal.
Let's pay attention to the negative aspects of heavy booking: a simple geometric calculation (the product of the length of the armored side x height x thickness, taking into account the density of steel 7800 kg / cubic meter) gives amazing results - the displacement of our "hypothetical cruiser" can increase by 1.5 times with 10,000 to 15,000 tons! Even taking into account the use of differentiated booking built into the design. To maintain the performance characteristics of an unarmored cruiser (speed, cruising range), an increase in the power of the ship's power plant will be required, which, in turn, will require an increase in fuel reserves. The weight spiral unwinds, recalling an anecdotal situation. When will she stop? When all the elements of the power plant proportionally increase, maintaining the original ratio. The result is an increase in the displacement of the cruiser to 15 … 20 thousand tons! Those.our battleship cruiser, possessing the same strike potential, will have twice the displacement of its unarmored sister ship. Conclusion - not a single maritime power will agree to such an increase in military spending. Moreover, as mentioned above, the dead thickness of the metal does not guarantee the protection of the ship.
On the other hand, one should not go to the point of absurdity, otherwise the formidable ship will be sunk from hand-held small arms. On modern destroyers, selective booking of important compartments is used, for example, on the Orly Berks, vertical launchers are covered with 25 mm armor plates, and the living compartments and the command center are covered with layers of Kevlar with a total mass of 60 tons. To ensure survivability, the layout, the choice of construction materials and the training of the crew are very important!
Nowadays, armor has been preserved on strike aircraft carriers - their colossal displacement allows such "excesses" to be installed. For example, the thickness of the sides and flight deck of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Enterprise" is within 150 mm. There was even room for anti-torpedo protection, which includes, in addition to standard watertight bulkheads, a cofferdam system and a double bottom. Although, the high survivability of the aircraft carrier is ensured, first of all, by its enormous size.
In the discussions on the Military Review forum, many readers drew attention to the existence in the 80s of a modernization program for Iowa-class battleships (4 ships, built during the Second World War, stood on the base for almost 30 years, periodically being involved in shelling the coast in Korea, Vietnam and Lebanon). In the early 80s, a program for their modernization was adopted - the ships received modern self-defense air defense systems, 32 Tomahawks and new electronic means. A complete set of armor and 406 mm artillery has been preserved. Alas, having served for 10 years, all 4 ships were withdrawn from the fleet due to physical wear and tear. All plans for their further modernization (with the installation of the UVP Mark-41 instead of the stern tower) remained on paper.
What was the reason for the reactivation of the old artillery ships? A new round of the arms race forced the two superpowers (which ones are not required to be specified) to use all available reserves. As a result, the US Navy extended the life of its superdreadnoughts, and the USSR Navy was in no hurry to abandon the artillery cruisers of the project 68-bis (the obsolete ships turned out to be an excellent means of fire support for the marines). The admirals overdid it - in addition to really useful ships that retained their combat potential, the fleets included many rusty galoshes - old Soviet destroyers of types 56 and 57, post-war submarines of project 641; American destroyers of the "Farragut" and "Charles F. Adams" types, aircraft carriers of the "Midway" class (1943). A lot of trash has accumulated. According to statistics, by 1989 the total displacement of the ships of the USSR Navy was 17% higher than the displacement of the US Navy.
With the disappearance of the USSR, efficiency came to the fore. The USSR Navy underwent a ruthless reduction, and in the United States in the early 90s, 18 URO cruisers of the Legi and Belknap types were excluded from the fleet, all 9 nuclear cruisers were scrapped (many did not even work out half of the planned deadline), followed by followed by 6 obsolete aircraft carriers of the Midway and Forestall types, and 4 battleships.
Those. the reactivation of old battleships in the early 80s was not a consequence of their outstanding abilities, it was a geopolitical game - the desire to have the largest possible fleet. At the same cost as an aircraft carrier, the battleship is an order of magnitude inferior to it in striking power and in the ability to control sea and air space. Therefore, despite the solid bookings, the Iowas are rusty targets in modern warfare. Hiding behind the dead metal is a completely hopeless approach.
Intensive way
The best defense is offense. This is what is believed all over the world, creating new self-defense systems for ships. After the Cole attack, no one began to weight the destroyers with armor plates. The American response was not original, but it was very effective - the installation of 25 mm automatic cannons "Bushmaster" with a digital guidance system in order to smash the boat with terrorists to pieces next time (however, I am still inaccurate - in the superstructure of the destroyer "Orly Burke" sub-series IIa, a new 1-inch thick armored bulkhead still appeared, but this does not at all look like a serious reservation).
Detection systems and anti-missile systems are being improved. In the USSR, the Kinzhal air defense system with the Podkat radar for detecting low-flying targets was adopted, as well as the unique Kortik self-defense missile and artillery complex. The new Russian development is the "Broadsword" air defense missile system. The famous Swiss company "Oerlikon" did not stand aside, which produced a rapid-fire 35-mm artillery mount "Millennium" with uranium striking elements (Venezuela was one of the first "Millenniums" to receive). Holland has developed a reference artillery system of close combat "Goalkeeper", combining the power of the Soviet AK-630M and the accuracy of the American "Phalanx". When creating a new generation of ESSM interceptors, the emphasis was placed on increasing the maneuverability of the missile defense system (flight speed up to 4..5 sound speeds, while the effective interception range is 50 km). It is possible to place 4 ESSMs in any of the 90 launch slots of the destroyer "Arlie Burke".
The navies of all countries have switched from thick armor to active defenses. Obviously, the Russian Navy should develop in the same direction. It seems to me an ideal variant of the main warship of the Navy, with a total displacement of 6,000 … 8,000 tons, with an emphasis on firepower. To provide acceptable protection against simple weapons of destruction, a completely steel hull, a competent layout of the internal premises and selective reservation of important nodes using composites are sufficient. Regarding severe damage, it is much more effective to shoot down an anti-ship missile on an approach than to extinguish fires in a torn up hull.
