TS
boleroes11
Rocket -Artillery Battleship XXI Century
Rocket-artillery battleship XXI century
Fighting near the coast require support naval artillery fire. Provide fire support for cruise missiles "Tomahawk" is not possible. We have very serious intentions about naval artillery.
- Lieutenant General Emil R. Bedard, U.S. Marine Corps
To begin with - a few facts and statistics.
Third of the world's population lives in the coastal strip 50 km wide. On the coast there are more than half of the megacities of the world: London, Istanbul, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Tokyo ...
Average distance shots naval artillery during "Operation Desert Storm" was 35 to 400 meters (gun battleship "Missouri" and "Wisconsin").
Explosion 862-kg explosive projectile Mk.13 created a 15-meter deep crater 6 meters. Vietnam veterans recall how the blast cleared the jungle to "spot" a radius of 180 meters, suitable for helicopter landing.
At a distance of 20 kilometers on 1225-kg armor-piercing "suitcase» Mk.8 APS could penetrate steel armor half a meter or more than six meters of reinforced concrete - no fortification could not withstand the power of 406 mm guns.
By analyzing the video set: battleships such as "Iowa" could do an hour before the main fire 1000 rounds. Similar density fire could create aviakryle two aircraft carriers.
According to the U.S. Navy, operating expenses battleship "Iowa" were 7 times lower than that of an aircraft carrier "Nimitz".
"Put-Aegis cruiser in the wake of the battleship - and you walk wherever you want. Add an aircraft carrier at a distance of a couple of hundred miles - and you get an unbeatable combat system "
- U.S. Navy Commander Admiral Carlisle Trost reactivation ceremony on the battleship "Wisconsin", October 1988
"When we passed the Strait of Hormuz, on the coast of Iran, there is silence. War at Sea completely stopped "
- Captain Larry Sikvist, commander of the battleship "Iowa" on the events of the tanker war (mid-80s).
Battleship "Wisconsin"
Opinions of outside experts.
"Of all your battleship fleet only looks like a real gun."
- Sultan Qaboos bin Said.
"We are ready to pay the costs of the two battleships class" Iowa "to ensure their continuous combat patrol in the Persian Gulf during the nine months of the year."
- Handling the Sultan of Oman to the U.S. Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, Fall 1991
"Fire battleship caused civilian casualties and grazing cattle in the valley."
- Information source in the Syrian army on developments in the Bekaa Valley (1983)
U.S. intelligence says the opposite: 300 shells from the battleship "New Jersey" silenced eight artillery batteries, which were bombing the Christian quarters west Beirut. SAMs were depressed position in the Bekaa Valley. One of the shells hit the KP, where at this time was the commander of the Syrian contingent in Lebanon.
And again - dry statistics.
On receipt of the request before the first shot of naval artillery should be not more than 2.5 minutes - this is standard U.S. Marine Corps, 1999 (Emergency Fire Support).
During the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia (1999), adverse weather conditions and poor visibility caused the partial or complete cancellation of 50% of the sorties.
"Until the end to be a problem with aiming through the clouds; no guarantee of air strikes in difficult weather conditions. "
- Lt. Gen. E. Bedard critical shortcomings in aviation tasks associated with the direct support of the troops.
A bit of history.
In the period from May 1951 to March 1952 U.S. Navy ships shot at targets on the Korean Peninsula 414,000 artillery shells (90% - five-inch shells, the rest - the caliber of six, eight and sixteen inches). Modern conflict between South Korea and North Korea will require not less intense fire support from the sea.
In the period from 1965 to 1968. American ships along the coast of Vietnam issued over 1.1 million shells. This is serious.
Battalions Ask for Fire
By the end of XX century fleet completely lost artillery caliber exceeding 5 inches. Most modern cruisers and destroyers have no more than one universal caliber gun mount 76 - 130 mm. Gun used as an aid for warning shots, firing and finishing vulnerable sites "wounded game."
The disappearance of large-caliber artillery did not mean the disappearance of tasks traditionally solved guns ships. Yes, in the fight at sea artillery gave way to missiles. But remained a "gap" in solving problems in the format "fleet against the shore." Suppression of enemy defenses, direct fire support, amphibious forces and army units conducting combat operations near the coast. Traditional scope of the "big guns".
First, nobody is paying attention - all were keen on the idea of missile weapons and global nuclear "holocaust." Suffice it to recall the means by which the Yankees were preparing to clear the enemy coast in the 60s - a missile with a nuclear warhead RIM-8B, which was part of the sea SAM "Talos" (power warhead - 2 km). Finally, the geopolitical situation was not conducive to the development of the idea of amphibious assault - superpower had allies in every region of the planet, which breaks through "visit" to the enemy (Vietnam, Iraq - all in a single scheme).
But there are exceptions - Bekaa Valley or the Falklands War in 1982, when sailors had no other choice but to uncover weapons and give a hundred volleys towards the coast. And if the Yankees in Lebanon lucky - there was reactivated battleship during the Second World, the British had tight. Of naval artillery were only 114 mm "pukalki" weakly Godea for shelling the coast. Situation saved only mediocre preparation opponent. It appear on the shore several tanks dug into the ground, the results of "Duel" could be dire for the destroyers of Her Majesty.
Destroyer "Cardiff" after the morning shelling coast
The first alarm sounded the U.S. Marines. These guys had everything we needed for the landing of the sea: a squadron of ships and amphibious assault helicopter, sea transshipment terminals MLP, high-speed transports and amphibious hovercraft. Amphibious armored vehicles, special equipment and weapons. Everything you need - except for fire support. The Pentagon offered his men to "go feeding" on guns unsuppressed enemy defenses.
But the defense to suppress? How to provide fire support for landing forces?
Five-inch guns of the destroyers?
Power 30-kg projectile enough just to fight unprotected manpower. Try to destroy them with the help of permanent fortifications, prepared positions and infrastructure on the coast of the enemy - a waste of resources and time. Firing range (20-25 km) are also not conducive to the effective use of pyatidyuymovok: closer to shore prevents the mine threat, and the ship itself becomes vulnerable to enemy fire.
Application of small caliber guns justified in massive bombardments and "sweeping" the enemy coast. But modern ships are not able even to this: just one gun on the destroyer gun with 600 rounds. Neither of which the intensity of the fire can not speak.
Create guided munitions also not solve anything: a five-inch shell is not able to penetrate even the meter reinforced concrete, and its high accuracy means little in comparison with large-caliber ammunition. Damage radius 406-mm shells in any case than circular error probable precision munitions ERGM.
Shot of pyatidyuymovki Mk.45
For this reason, in the U.S. in 2008 were stopped work on the creation of long-range missiles for sea "pyatidyuymovok." Program Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) included the creation of guided missile with a range estimated 110 km, but the selected caliber was too small.
Finally, do not neglect the psychological factor - the bursting shells caliber capable of causing panic and lead to a mass exodus of enemy soldiers with the occupied territory. That has been repeatedly proven in practice.
Close air support?
"All-weather aircraft in bad weather does not fly" (Murphy's Law). In the snowstorm, fog or sandstorm Troopers guaranteed remain without fire support. The second important factor - reaction time: here competition guns can only make a combat air patrol, constantly hanging over the front edge.
Sandstorm
American pilots felt themselves masters of the sky in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. But what happens in the event of war with North Korea or amphibious landing in Iran?
The Iranians may appear modern SAMs. North Koreans have a tremendous amount of baggage flak. This eliminates fly at heights below 2 thousand meters, which in turn makes it difficult to use unguided weapons, making it impossible to fly helicopter gunships and substitutes aircraft at medium altitudes under fire from anti-aircraft missiles.
What is the advanced air defense system, the Yankees know firsthand. A stern warning from the past became Vietnam according to official figures, the losses in the war amounted to 8612 aircraft and helicopters.
American "aerokratiya" powerless against the nasty weather and air defense systems S-300. "Tomahawk" too expensive and too small. Five-inch guns do not have enough killing power.
Can only help to landing the big guns
To our displeasure, American naval commanders and engineers reacted quickly and offered several solutions to the problem. Among the proposals were voiced following.
Fire support ship-based amphibious transport «San Antonio» (LPD-17), armed with a pair of 155 mm guns AGS. Relatively cheap and cheerful option.
Amphibious transport dock of "San Antonio"
The second proposal - rocket-artillery destroyer "Zamvolt." It is this version subsequently earned a start in life. It was planned that "Zamvolty" will be the main type of U.S. Navy destroyers (not less than 30 units), but the exorbitant greed managers shipyards and sophisticated design of the ship was forced to change plans in the direction of decreasing order. There will be built no more than three "Zamvoltov." Specific impact means for the future of local wars.
Also among the proposals was a conservative option with the construction of an additional aircraft carrier (which was absolutely not the topic - Navy needed a gun). And finally, a provocative initiative to build a missile and artillery ... battleship.
German frigate "Hamburg" the tower of ACS Pz.2000 (caliber 155 mm)
Major warship (Capital Surface Warship, CSW). And why not?
Suggestive ship shape as follows.
360 missile launchers cells (below deck OHR Mk.41).
Several artillery towers with guns of a caliber exceeding twelve inches (305 mm or more). Modern missiles with extended range and laser / GPS guidance (technologies developed under the program ERGM).
Caliber guns five inches (127 mm) with increased capacity cellars - for massive shelling and destruction of the coast unprotected targets.
Modern radar and fire control facilities (similar to the "Aegis"), complex automation ship.
Everything presented in chained splendor UHF armor and enclosed in full displacement 57,000 tons.
Neolinkora concept was proposed by the Department of reforming the armed forces (Office of Force Transformation, OFT) U.S. Department of Defense in 2007.
Despite the seeming improbability of such a ship, the idea of CSW has found broad support among the sailors. Neolinkor is a simple and obvious solution to a number of important objectives: fire support (cheap, reliable and efficient), a show of force in peacetime (easy to imagine what would have ferocious appearance CSW). Due to its superior weaponry and combat stability, Battleship is the most important figure in the theater of hostilities. Invulnerable and immortal warrior, by his mere presence suggestive awe at distracting the enemy and significant resources to attempt to destroy this ship.
On duty, I had to face a lot of programs to improve the survivability of ships. In my personal opinion, there is no more enduring ship than a battleship.
- James O'Brien, head of the fire tests and evaluation of combat damage, the U.S. Defense Department.
Conning battleship "Massachusetts"
But is it possible to combine the traditional elements of the era dreadnoughts technologies of our time? On the technical side, the response is overwhelmingly positive. Weight and dimensions of modern weapons and mechanisms decreased radically: CSW on each light bulb, a generator or switchboard to be several times lighter than similar devices on the battleship "Iowa" (1943) Release reserve load will not be wasted. Modern battleship will have even more impressive is protected and enhanced weapons.
What is the main problem in the way of implementing the idea of CSW?
Of course, the funds needed to cover the costs for design and construction of such an unusual ship. But how justified are the fears and doubts of skeptics?
Of course, CSW will not cheap. Like his ancestors - battleships and battle cruisers - capital ship will be an attribute of the fleets of the leading powers. Others will quietly envy aside, avoiding situations where this silischa may turn against them.
Neolinkor superavianostsa significantly less (57 versus 100 thousand tons) and, therefore, can not be more expensive than nuclear giant with superradarom, electromagnetic catapults and plasma system garbage disposal. The cost of an aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford", excluding the cost of its wing, exceeds $ 13 billion, however, the colossal figure did not bother the military - "Ford" plan to build a series of 10-11 units with a single ship in the rate of 4-5 years.
Aircraft carrier "Carl Vinson" parking passes battleship "Missouri", Pearl Harbor
Proponents CSW estimated that the development and construction neolinkora would cost an amount close to $ 10 billion at the same time:
Neolinkora operating costs are much closer to the cost of operating the missile cruiser "Ticonderoga" than to the cost of maintenance of the aircraft carrier and its air wing.
While we should not forget that the battleship will carry as many weapons as ten "Ticonderoga" and "Arleigh Burke" combined. In addition, will have the highest combat stability and sinister reputation.
One of the prerequisites to the popularity of the project began CSW problems associated with the construction of the destroyer "Zamvolt."
Two six-inch guns, firing at a range of 160 km. 80 vertical installations for missile weapons.
Alas, the wonderful concept of missile and artillery ship was ruined monstrous level of technical performance. Trying to make invisible 14,500 ton destroyer conjugate with numerous innovations (DBR with six radar AFAR, water jet, peripheral OHR special design) - all this led to the logical result. The cost of "Zamvolta" with all R & D and prototype construction superesmintsa 1:4 scale, exceeded 7 billion.
USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)
Top management is concerned about the U.S. Navy prohibitive complexity and abnormally high cost of a destroyer. All louder doubts combat value of the ship, which is on its debt service will come closer to the coast of the enemy less than 100 miles. Nevertheless, a huge expensive ship is practically devoid of constructive protection (UVP peripheral armored - no more "shells" in Thai boxer). Worse, "Zamvolt" largely deprived of the means of active defense: no ammunition in the long-range anti-aircraft missiles, the ship does not carry any "Phalanx" and RIM-116.
"Zamvolt" is designed to be unobtrusive to the enemy. But there are situations when the fight is inevitable.
It is easy to guess what will happen in this case with a 7-billion-dollar "Zamvoltom." It is not clear whether there is enough strength in 150 sailors (these are the results of total automation destroyer) to extinguish fires and promptly repaired holes in the 180-meter housing.
Exceptionally high cost, questionable combat stability, small ammunition (only 80 OHR and 920 shells in both stacking).
Yankees set themselves the obvious question: maybe worth to stop work on the project definitely hopeless invisible destroyer. And instead of "white elephants" to build a couple of really combat-capable ships that can safely operate close to the coast and to demolish the enemy of their huge guns everything in its path.
Capital warships CSW, the most relevant challenges of the new millennium.
"Battleships are designed to project its power and survive in combat. They are able to resist all forms of aggression - more than any other ship in the composition of our Navy. They are well armed and dominate the sea. "
- Statement by Admiral Traina in connection with starting the program for the reactivation of the old battleships
Chinese "Battleship"
Reference of the report Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap, 2007
==============================================================
Beberapa catatan / laporan perihal effektiveness bantuan tembakan Artilery dari beberapa jenis kapal perang atas air.
Catatan / Laporan itu dijadikan referensi dan persyaratan antar pihak yg terkait dengan judul :
" A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap. 2007."
Salam.
Fighting near the coast require support naval artillery fire. Provide fire support for cruise missiles "Tomahawk" is not possible. We have very serious intentions about naval artillery.
- Lieutenant General Emil R. Bedard, U.S. Marine Corps
To begin with - a few facts and statistics.
Third of the world's population lives in the coastal strip 50 km wide. On the coast there are more than half of the megacities of the world: London, Istanbul, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Tokyo ...
Average distance shots naval artillery during "Operation Desert Storm" was 35 to 400 meters (gun battleship "Missouri" and "Wisconsin").
Explosion 862-kg explosive projectile Mk.13 created a 15-meter deep crater 6 meters. Vietnam veterans recall how the blast cleared the jungle to "spot" a radius of 180 meters, suitable for helicopter landing.
At a distance of 20 kilometers on 1225-kg armor-piercing "suitcase» Mk.8 APS could penetrate steel armor half a meter or more than six meters of reinforced concrete - no fortification could not withstand the power of 406 mm guns.
By analyzing the video set: battleships such as "Iowa" could do an hour before the main fire 1000 rounds. Similar density fire could create aviakryle two aircraft carriers.
According to the U.S. Navy, operating expenses battleship "Iowa" were 7 times lower than that of an aircraft carrier "Nimitz".
"Put-Aegis cruiser in the wake of the battleship - and you walk wherever you want. Add an aircraft carrier at a distance of a couple of hundred miles - and you get an unbeatable combat system "
- U.S. Navy Commander Admiral Carlisle Trost reactivation ceremony on the battleship "Wisconsin", October 1988
"When we passed the Strait of Hormuz, on the coast of Iran, there is silence. War at Sea completely stopped "
- Captain Larry Sikvist, commander of the battleship "Iowa" on the events of the tanker war (mid-80s).
Battleship "Wisconsin"
Opinions of outside experts.
"Of all your battleship fleet only looks like a real gun."
- Sultan Qaboos bin Said.
"We are ready to pay the costs of the two battleships class" Iowa "to ensure their continuous combat patrol in the Persian Gulf during the nine months of the year."
- Handling the Sultan of Oman to the U.S. Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, Fall 1991
"Fire battleship caused civilian casualties and grazing cattle in the valley."
- Information source in the Syrian army on developments in the Bekaa Valley (1983)
U.S. intelligence says the opposite: 300 shells from the battleship "New Jersey" silenced eight artillery batteries, which were bombing the Christian quarters west Beirut. SAMs were depressed position in the Bekaa Valley. One of the shells hit the KP, where at this time was the commander of the Syrian contingent in Lebanon.
And again - dry statistics.
On receipt of the request before the first shot of naval artillery should be not more than 2.5 minutes - this is standard U.S. Marine Corps, 1999 (Emergency Fire Support).
During the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia (1999), adverse weather conditions and poor visibility caused the partial or complete cancellation of 50% of the sorties.
"Until the end to be a problem with aiming through the clouds; no guarantee of air strikes in difficult weather conditions. "
- Lt. Gen. E. Bedard critical shortcomings in aviation tasks associated with the direct support of the troops.
A bit of history.
In the period from May 1951 to March 1952 U.S. Navy ships shot at targets on the Korean Peninsula 414,000 artillery shells (90% - five-inch shells, the rest - the caliber of six, eight and sixteen inches). Modern conflict between South Korea and North Korea will require not less intense fire support from the sea.
In the period from 1965 to 1968. American ships along the coast of Vietnam issued over 1.1 million shells. This is serious.
Battalions Ask for Fire
By the end of XX century fleet completely lost artillery caliber exceeding 5 inches. Most modern cruisers and destroyers have no more than one universal caliber gun mount 76 - 130 mm. Gun used as an aid for warning shots, firing and finishing vulnerable sites "wounded game."
The disappearance of large-caliber artillery did not mean the disappearance of tasks traditionally solved guns ships. Yes, in the fight at sea artillery gave way to missiles. But remained a "gap" in solving problems in the format "fleet against the shore." Suppression of enemy defenses, direct fire support, amphibious forces and army units conducting combat operations near the coast. Traditional scope of the "big guns".
First, nobody is paying attention - all were keen on the idea of missile weapons and global nuclear "holocaust." Suffice it to recall the means by which the Yankees were preparing to clear the enemy coast in the 60s - a missile with a nuclear warhead RIM-8B, which was part of the sea SAM "Talos" (power warhead - 2 km). Finally, the geopolitical situation was not conducive to the development of the idea of amphibious assault - superpower had allies in every region of the planet, which breaks through "visit" to the enemy (Vietnam, Iraq - all in a single scheme).
But there are exceptions - Bekaa Valley or the Falklands War in 1982, when sailors had no other choice but to uncover weapons and give a hundred volleys towards the coast. And if the Yankees in Lebanon lucky - there was reactivated battleship during the Second World, the British had tight. Of naval artillery were only 114 mm "pukalki" weakly Godea for shelling the coast. Situation saved only mediocre preparation opponent. It appear on the shore several tanks dug into the ground, the results of "Duel" could be dire for the destroyers of Her Majesty.
Destroyer "Cardiff" after the morning shelling coast
The first alarm sounded the U.S. Marines. These guys had everything we needed for the landing of the sea: a squadron of ships and amphibious assault helicopter, sea transshipment terminals MLP, high-speed transports and amphibious hovercraft. Amphibious armored vehicles, special equipment and weapons. Everything you need - except for fire support. The Pentagon offered his men to "go feeding" on guns unsuppressed enemy defenses.
But the defense to suppress? How to provide fire support for landing forces?
Five-inch guns of the destroyers?
Power 30-kg projectile enough just to fight unprotected manpower. Try to destroy them with the help of permanent fortifications, prepared positions and infrastructure on the coast of the enemy - a waste of resources and time. Firing range (20-25 km) are also not conducive to the effective use of pyatidyuymovok: closer to shore prevents the mine threat, and the ship itself becomes vulnerable to enemy fire.
Application of small caliber guns justified in massive bombardments and "sweeping" the enemy coast. But modern ships are not able even to this: just one gun on the destroyer gun with 600 rounds. Neither of which the intensity of the fire can not speak.
Create guided munitions also not solve anything: a five-inch shell is not able to penetrate even the meter reinforced concrete, and its high accuracy means little in comparison with large-caliber ammunition. Damage radius 406-mm shells in any case than circular error probable precision munitions ERGM.
Shot of pyatidyuymovki Mk.45
For this reason, in the U.S. in 2008 were stopped work on the creation of long-range missiles for sea "pyatidyuymovok." Program Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) included the creation of guided missile with a range estimated 110 km, but the selected caliber was too small.
Finally, do not neglect the psychological factor - the bursting shells caliber capable of causing panic and lead to a mass exodus of enemy soldiers with the occupied territory. That has been repeatedly proven in practice.
Close air support?
"All-weather aircraft in bad weather does not fly" (Murphy's Law). In the snowstorm, fog or sandstorm Troopers guaranteed remain without fire support. The second important factor - reaction time: here competition guns can only make a combat air patrol, constantly hanging over the front edge.
Sandstorm
American pilots felt themselves masters of the sky in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. But what happens in the event of war with North Korea or amphibious landing in Iran?
The Iranians may appear modern SAMs. North Koreans have a tremendous amount of baggage flak. This eliminates fly at heights below 2 thousand meters, which in turn makes it difficult to use unguided weapons, making it impossible to fly helicopter gunships and substitutes aircraft at medium altitudes under fire from anti-aircraft missiles.
What is the advanced air defense system, the Yankees know firsthand. A stern warning from the past became Vietnam according to official figures, the losses in the war amounted to 8612 aircraft and helicopters.
American "aerokratiya" powerless against the nasty weather and air defense systems S-300. "Tomahawk" too expensive and too small. Five-inch guns do not have enough killing power.
Can only help to landing the big guns
To our displeasure, American naval commanders and engineers reacted quickly and offered several solutions to the problem. Among the proposals were voiced following.
Fire support ship-based amphibious transport «San Antonio» (LPD-17), armed with a pair of 155 mm guns AGS. Relatively cheap and cheerful option.
Amphibious transport dock of "San Antonio"
The second proposal - rocket-artillery destroyer "Zamvolt." It is this version subsequently earned a start in life. It was planned that "Zamvolty" will be the main type of U.S. Navy destroyers (not less than 30 units), but the exorbitant greed managers shipyards and sophisticated design of the ship was forced to change plans in the direction of decreasing order. There will be built no more than three "Zamvoltov." Specific impact means for the future of local wars.
Also among the proposals was a conservative option with the construction of an additional aircraft carrier (which was absolutely not the topic - Navy needed a gun). And finally, a provocative initiative to build a missile and artillery ... battleship.
German frigate "Hamburg" the tower of ACS Pz.2000 (caliber 155 mm)
Major warship (Capital Surface Warship, CSW). And why not?
Suggestive ship shape as follows.
360 missile launchers cells (below deck OHR Mk.41).
Several artillery towers with guns of a caliber exceeding twelve inches (305 mm or more). Modern missiles with extended range and laser / GPS guidance (technologies developed under the program ERGM).
Caliber guns five inches (127 mm) with increased capacity cellars - for massive shelling and destruction of the coast unprotected targets.
Modern radar and fire control facilities (similar to the "Aegis"), complex automation ship.
Everything presented in chained splendor UHF armor and enclosed in full displacement 57,000 tons.
Neolinkora concept was proposed by the Department of reforming the armed forces (Office of Force Transformation, OFT) U.S. Department of Defense in 2007.
Despite the seeming improbability of such a ship, the idea of CSW has found broad support among the sailors. Neolinkor is a simple and obvious solution to a number of important objectives: fire support (cheap, reliable and efficient), a show of force in peacetime (easy to imagine what would have ferocious appearance CSW). Due to its superior weaponry and combat stability, Battleship is the most important figure in the theater of hostilities. Invulnerable and immortal warrior, by his mere presence suggestive awe at distracting the enemy and significant resources to attempt to destroy this ship.
On duty, I had to face a lot of programs to improve the survivability of ships. In my personal opinion, there is no more enduring ship than a battleship.
- James O'Brien, head of the fire tests and evaluation of combat damage, the U.S. Defense Department.
Conning battleship "Massachusetts"
But is it possible to combine the traditional elements of the era dreadnoughts technologies of our time? On the technical side, the response is overwhelmingly positive. Weight and dimensions of modern weapons and mechanisms decreased radically: CSW on each light bulb, a generator or switchboard to be several times lighter than similar devices on the battleship "Iowa" (1943) Release reserve load will not be wasted. Modern battleship will have even more impressive is protected and enhanced weapons.
What is the main problem in the way of implementing the idea of CSW?
Of course, the funds needed to cover the costs for design and construction of such an unusual ship. But how justified are the fears and doubts of skeptics?
Of course, CSW will not cheap. Like his ancestors - battleships and battle cruisers - capital ship will be an attribute of the fleets of the leading powers. Others will quietly envy aside, avoiding situations where this silischa may turn against them.
Neolinkor superavianostsa significantly less (57 versus 100 thousand tons) and, therefore, can not be more expensive than nuclear giant with superradarom, electromagnetic catapults and plasma system garbage disposal. The cost of an aircraft carrier "Gerald Ford", excluding the cost of its wing, exceeds $ 13 billion, however, the colossal figure did not bother the military - "Ford" plan to build a series of 10-11 units with a single ship in the rate of 4-5 years.
Aircraft carrier "Carl Vinson" parking passes battleship "Missouri", Pearl Harbor
Proponents CSW estimated that the development and construction neolinkora would cost an amount close to $ 10 billion at the same time:
Neolinkora operating costs are much closer to the cost of operating the missile cruiser "Ticonderoga" than to the cost of maintenance of the aircraft carrier and its air wing.
While we should not forget that the battleship will carry as many weapons as ten "Ticonderoga" and "Arleigh Burke" combined. In addition, will have the highest combat stability and sinister reputation.
One of the prerequisites to the popularity of the project began CSW problems associated with the construction of the destroyer "Zamvolt."
Two six-inch guns, firing at a range of 160 km. 80 vertical installations for missile weapons.
Alas, the wonderful concept of missile and artillery ship was ruined monstrous level of technical performance. Trying to make invisible 14,500 ton destroyer conjugate with numerous innovations (DBR with six radar AFAR, water jet, peripheral OHR special design) - all this led to the logical result. The cost of "Zamvolta" with all R & D and prototype construction superesmintsa 1:4 scale, exceeded 7 billion.
USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)
Top management is concerned about the U.S. Navy prohibitive complexity and abnormally high cost of a destroyer. All louder doubts combat value of the ship, which is on its debt service will come closer to the coast of the enemy less than 100 miles. Nevertheless, a huge expensive ship is practically devoid of constructive protection (UVP peripheral armored - no more "shells" in Thai boxer). Worse, "Zamvolt" largely deprived of the means of active defense: no ammunition in the long-range anti-aircraft missiles, the ship does not carry any "Phalanx" and RIM-116.
"Zamvolt" is designed to be unobtrusive to the enemy. But there are situations when the fight is inevitable.
It is easy to guess what will happen in this case with a 7-billion-dollar "Zamvoltom." It is not clear whether there is enough strength in 150 sailors (these are the results of total automation destroyer) to extinguish fires and promptly repaired holes in the 180-meter housing.
Exceptionally high cost, questionable combat stability, small ammunition (only 80 OHR and 920 shells in both stacking).
Yankees set themselves the obvious question: maybe worth to stop work on the project definitely hopeless invisible destroyer. And instead of "white elephants" to build a couple of really combat-capable ships that can safely operate close to the coast and to demolish the enemy of their huge guns everything in its path.
Capital warships CSW, the most relevant challenges of the new millennium.
"Battleships are designed to project its power and survive in combat. They are able to resist all forms of aggression - more than any other ship in the composition of our Navy. They are well armed and dominate the sea. "
- Statement by Admiral Traina in connection with starting the program for the reactivation of the old battleships
Chinese "Battleship"
Reference of the report Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap, 2007
==============================================================
Beberapa catatan / laporan perihal effektiveness bantuan tembakan Artilery dari beberapa jenis kapal perang atas air.
Catatan / Laporan itu dijadikan referensi dan persyaratan antar pihak yg terkait dengan judul :
" A Case Study in Solving the Naval Surface Fire Support Capabilities Gap. 2007."
Salam.
0
7.7K
16
Thread Digembok
Urutan
Terbaru
Terlama
Thread Digembok
Komunitas Pilihan