They say the truth lies between two opposing opinions. Wrong! There is a problem in between.
(Johann Wolfgang Goethe)
At the beginning of the year, the topwar.ru portal published an interesting article by Vladimir Meilitsev "Explosion on Armor". The article caused a heated discussion and received many positive reviews from readers.
Indeed, the lack of significant structural protection on warships remains one of the most mysterious trends in modern shipbuilding. Neither the USC management nor the top management of Bath Iron Works give any official comments and pretend that such a problem does not exist. Everything was decided long ago and without you. Don't ask stupid questions!
Traveling across the Internet, I accidentally discovered that the article "Explosion on armor" had another interesting chapter ("Why does electronics exclude armor?"), In which the author convincingly substantiated the thesis that the disappearance of armor is an inevitable consequence of the development of electronics and missile weapons.
There are summary data for the decade from 1951 to 1961. The volumes occupied by armaments increased during this time by 2, 9 times; volumes under electronics - by 3, 4 times. … it is clear that there is no room for armor.
The article presented several sparkling examples of the evolution of the appearance of the fleet and the related changes in the design of ships. But, as it seemed to me, too mediocre conclusions were drawn.
What happened to the cruiser Oklahoma City?
In the American sense, the phrase "Guy from Oklahoma" sounds about the same as in our country "Chukchi from Chukotka". However, despite all the provinciality of Oklahoma City, the USS Oklahoma City (CL-91 / CLG-5) turned out to be great. The twentieth Cleveland-class cruiser, launched on February 20, 1944.
The war soon ended, and the cruiser had a great future: along with two cruisers of the same type, Oklahoma City was selected to participate in the Galveston project to convert obsolete artillery ships into missile carriers. This is where the fun began.
Strong armor and proven artillery fought for the right to exist with modern computers, missiles and radar stations!
The result was as follows:
The booking scheme remained unchanged. However, the cruiser lost three main caliber turrets (152 mm) and five universal caliber turrets (127 mm). Moreover, each three-gun tower Mk.16 weighed 170 tons, excluding the mechanization of the cellars and ammunition! Along with the towers, the armored barbets and the aft armored director of the FCS Mk.37 disappeared.
Enormous weight savings! But what did the ship get in return?
Just a long-range air defense system "Talos". A new enlarged superstructure and a pair of towering truss masts with radars - the antennas soared up 40+ meters above the waterline! An additional anti-aircraft missile guidance post appeared in the aft part of the superstructure.
SAM "Talos" with 46 missiles ammunition, two-coordinate air surveillance radar AN / SPS-43, three-coordinate radar AN / SPS-30, surface surveillance radar SPS-10A, two radars for guiding missiles SPG-49. And also: a navigation radar, AN / SPW-2 radio command transmitters - a total of forty-seven additional antenna devices for various purposes (communications, radars, transponders, radio beacons, electronic warfare equipment).
So what happened to Oklahoma in the end?
The answer is obvious - the only air defense missile system and equipment of the new generation "gobbled up" the entire load reserve that arose after the removal of 3/4 of the main battery artillery and five towers with paired universal guns! But this was not enough. The electronics blocks required significant volumes for their placement - the cruiser "swollen" and multiplied in size the superstructure.
It turns out that electronic systems and missile weapons are the main load items in the design of modern ships!
In general, this is the wrong conclusion. And that's why:
May Vladimir Meilitsev forgive me, but the scheme for storing and supplying ammunition for the Talos air defense missile system given in his article looks like an outrage against a unique complex that had no analogues in the vastness of the World Ocean for 20 years.
The Talos missiles were kept disassembled. Before the launch, it was required to dock the warhead of the rocket with a sustainer stage on liquid fuel, and then attach a two-ton solid-propellant booster. The assembled length of the super-rocket reached 9.5 meters. As you can imagine, installation and transportation of such a complex and cumbersome system was not a trivial task. As a result, the aft part of Oklahoma turned into a huge rocket shop!
The interior of an armored missile cellar.
Cruiser-Museum "Little Rock", also modernized along "Galveston"
The Mark-7 storage and prelaunch preparation system consisted of an armored bunker on the upper deck (wall thickness 37 mm; hatches with blast wave protection), as well as a system of underdecks intended for loading, storing and transporting warheads to the prelaunch area for missiles … Tunnels, trolleys, a room for checking and testing the SBS, an elevator shaft that runs through the ship to the very bottom - Talos warheads, incl. in the nuclear version, were stored in the cellar below the waterline. Also, the complex included a bulky launcher - a two-girder rotary pedestal, and its power drives in the underdeck rooms.
Anything about Talos is shocking. The complex is so huge that no one else has ever built such monsters.
The launch weight of the Talos rocket is 3.5 tons. This is twice as heavy as any modern missile defense system!
"Talos" and its fire control systems on the cruiser "Albany" - also an improvisation based on the TKR during the Second World War. The scale of this madness is well felt in comparison with the figures of sailors.
The harsh truth of the Oklahoma City cruiser was that it had a long-range air defense system on board, based on technology from the 50s. All the electronics on lamps, heavy radars, primitive rocket technology, a bulky storage and launch preparation system, ancient computers that occupied entire rooms … No wonder the Americans had to dismantle eight gun turrets to install the Talos!
Do not forget about the unnecessarily high masts with massive antenna devices, an enlarged superstructure, as well as the dubious idea of storing missile ammunition in a bunker on the upper deck. To compensate for these factors and their negative impact on stability (CM displacement, windage, etc.), several hundred tons of additional ballast were laid along the Oklahoma keel!
And yet, despite outdated technology, the Americans managed to create a full-fledged missile and artillery cruiser. With the most powerful Talos complex (firing range of 180 km for the RIM-8C modification). And to keep the bow group of artillery (two turrets with five- and six-inch guns) and constructive protection, which included 127 mm armor belt and horizontal armor (deck No. 3, 50 mm thick).
The total displacement of the modernized Oklahoma City reached 15,200 tons - 800 tons heavier than the original design. However, the cruiser suffered from a low stability margin and heeled dangerously even in a weak storm. The problem was solved by dismantling a part of the secondary equipment of the superstructure and laying 1200 tons of additional ballast along the keel. The draft has increased by more than 1 meter. Full displacement exceeded 16 thousand tons! In principle, the price paid was not high - taking into account the "compactness" of tube electronics, masts of incredible height and the amazing Talos air defense missile system.
How the destroyer Ferragat became the cruiser Legi
Another brilliant example from V. Meilitsev!
So, once upon a time there was a destroyer USS Farragut (DDG-37) - the lead in a series of 10 ships built at the turn of the 50-60s. A very large destroyer, one and a half times larger than all its peers - its total displacement was 6200 tons!
The Farragat was one of the world's first missile carriers. In the rear of the destroyer was installed a medium-range air defense missile system "Terrier" (effective firing range - 40 km, very solid by the standards of those years) with an ammunition load of 40 missiles. The destroyer's armament also included the ASROK missile-torpedo launcher and the 127-mm Mk.42 highly automated gun.
The Ferragat had no reservations.
Where is the "catch" here? The real intrigue begins with the appearance on the horizon of the escort cruiser USS Leahy (CG-16).
Despite the difference in classification, "Lehi" and "Farragat" have a lot in common - a power plant of the same power, a set of radar equipment, a weapon … The main difference is that the cruiser carried two "Terrier" air defense systems on board (total ammunition - 80 missiles). Otherwise, the cruiser and the destroyer looked like twins.
At the same time, the full displacement of the "Lega" reached 8400 tons!
Cruiser URO "Legi"
Destroyer URO "Farragat"
Here it is, the destructive influence of missiles and electronics on the design of modern ships! The installation of one additional air defense system increased the ship's displacement by more than two thousand tons (30% of the total in / and "Ferragat"). What kind of armor can we talk about if the ship can hardly fit its own weapon ?!
This is an erroneous conclusion. In our discussion, we have missed a number of important details.
The first obvious oddity: "Ferragat" had a displacement too large for its class (by the standards of the 50s) - 6200 tons! In parallel with Farragat, another series of missile destroyers, the Charles F. Adams, was under construction in the United States. 4500 tons.
Charles F. Adams-class destroyer
"Adams" was armed with a short-range air defense system "Tartar" (ammunition - 42 missiles without a starting booster). However, the smaller mass of "Tartar" was successfully compensated by the installation of an additional 60-ton cannon Mk.42 ("Adams" carried two instead of one on the "Ferragat"). The ASROK box was present on both ships unchanged. Differences in the characteristics of the radar in this case do not matter - both ships were equipped with bulky electronics.
The difference of 1,700 tons of displacement is difficult to explain only by missiles and electronics. It is worth paying attention to the following important factors: the power plant "Ferragata" was 15 thousand hp. more powerful than the power plant "Adams". In addition, the "Ferragat" had a greater speed and cruising range. And most importantly, the destroyer was a "rework": "Ferragat" was created as a high-speed anti-submarine ship with classic artillery, torpedoes and rocket-propelled bombs. As a result, it had an irrational layout, unlike the Adams, which was originally designed as a missile destroyer.
Everything is not easy here …
With regard to the comparison of a cruiser and a destroyer, it clearly shows that "electronics and missiles" are not the dominant load items in the design of modern ships. It is strange that the author paid no attention to this.
Firstly, "Legi" was created as a cruiser to escort aircraft carrier groups at any distance from the coast and had a colossal cruising range - 8000 miles at 20 knots (for comparison, the cruising range of "Farragat", according to various sources, varied from 4500 to 5000 miles 20 knots). To put it simply, the Lehi was forced to carry an additional 500-700 tons of fuel.
But this is all nonsense compared to the main thing!
"Adams", "Ferragat", "Legs" and other masterpieces of that era were miniature "pelvis", the largest of which ("Legs") were half the size of the cruisers of the Second World War!
No rockets or bulky tube electronics could compensate for the lack of armor and artillery. The first-borns of the "rocket era" quickly "shrank" in size.
The table is not entirely correct. First, ships of different classes are compared - the 3000 ton Fletcher and the 9000 ton Belknap. So the extra 150 tons of electronics for Belknap is like grain for an elephant. As well as an additional 400 cubic meters of space to accommodate it. And, as already noted, the radio electronics of those years was not very compact.
The reference to the increase in power consumption of new equipment looks just as unfounded. It is enough to look at the required power of the power plant of the ships of the Second World War and compare them with the same "Lehi". The American has 85,000 hp. Similar in size, the Soviet light cruiser pr. 26 "Maxim Gorky" (1940) had 130,000 hp on the propeller shafts! So much power was required to accelerate the ship to a speed of 37 knots.
In the coming era of rocket weapons, such speed was useless. The freed up load and free space reserve was successfully spent on the placement of an additional ship power plant and switchboards.
The heavy cruiser "Des Moines", built at the end of the war, had a "specific electrical power" of 0.42 kW / t (per ton of displacement) … on the nuclear frigate "Bainbridge" (1962) this figure was already 1.77 kW / t …
Everything is correct. But it is worth remembering that the atomic frigate Bainbridge was half the size of Des Moines.
Epilogue
Farragat, Adams, Legs, Bainbridge - all examples considered are ancient vessels of the beginning of the Cold War.
How far have radars and electronics evolved today? How have missiles and fire controls changed? Does the Talos armored cellar look like a compact underdeck UVP? (for this purpose, a comparison of the modern Mk.41 with the beam PU Mk.26 from the 70s is indicative). What is the difference between a steam turbine power plant running on fuel oil and a modern gas turbine?
New technologies in design, new welding methods, new materials and alloys, ubiquitous automation of the ship (for comparison, the Oklahoma crew consisted of 1400 sailors; modern Zamvolt and Type 45 cost only a couple of hundred).
German frigate "Hamburg" model 2004. Full displacement - 5800 tons. A small faceted "turret" in the bow of the superstructure duplicates all the giant antennas that were installed on ships of past years: detection of air and surface targets, navigation, adjustment of artillery fire, missile flight control, target illumination - everything is controlled by the only AFAR multifunctional radar with 4 active headlights … At the rear of the superstructure, an anthracite black long-range radar SMART-L is visible. This thing sees satellites in low Earth orbit. "Oklahoma" with its bulky radars did not stand nearby
Such things have a cumulative effect of reducing the main load items of ships. The reserve that has emerged has been successfully spent on expanding living space, fancy gyms / fitness centers and converting the warship into a brothel. In addition to "inflating" superstructures, the reserve was spent on any whims of the customer: if you wish, you can stuff several hundred samples of missile weapons on a modern ship (for example, the South Korean King Shojeng), install any radar, or even leave space free - in order to save money in peacetime …
Much has already been written about the need to equip modern ships with armor. Let me quote three main points:
1. The armor was removed due to the threat of an imminent nuclear war. The Third World War did not happen, and the armless "pelvis" as a result turned out to be easy victims in modern local conflicts.
2. The presence of a booking scheme similar to those used in the most advanced and rational cruisers of the WWII era (for example, the Baltimore-class TKR, adjusted for new technologies), nowadays excludes heavy damage to the ship in the war with the Third World countries. And it makes it extremely difficult to defeat it with the help of air attack weapons in a fight with an opponent of equal strength.
3. Installation of armor will undoubtedly increase the ship's displacement and its cost (up to 30%, taking into account the volume of the hull necessary to maintain the same stability). But what does an additional couple of hundred million mean when the "filling" of the ship is worth billions ?!
At the same time, an armored cruiser cannot be disabled by a single explosion. He cannot be knocked out by suicide fanatics on a leaky felucca. And most modern anti-ship missiles will be powerless in front of an armored monster.
The lack of armor on modern ships is not a consequence of any design constraints. It is dictated by the personal interests of the leadership of the naval forces of the leading countries of the world (USA, Japan, NATO). Countries that are able to build a battleship with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons are not interested in the appearance of non-armored carriers. The appearance of such a ship will instantly age all 84 American Ticonderogs and Orly Burke.
“You have to be the greatest fool to encourage developments that give nothing to a country that already has absolute domination of the sea. Moreover, if they succeed, we can lose this dominance … (British Admiral Lord Jervis on testing a working model of a submarine, 1801).
P. S. On the title illustration to the article - BOD (patrol ship) of project 61. Total displacement of 4300 tons. The technical design of this BOD was approved in 1958 - that's why the patrol ship seems overloaded with giant antennas.
Missile and artillery cruiser "Oklahoma City"
Cruiser URO "Legi"
Destroyer URO "Farragat", 1957 (after modernization in the 80s)
Destroyer URO "Ferragat", 2006
