Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Iridium
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
i read a while ago that some missiles have shaped-charged warheads, and some have multi-part shaped-charged warheads (to punch through multiple layers of armor) - don't know if it is true, though.
Even if true, can't this be defeated with a simple plate of metal offset from the hull proper?
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
As armour improves (see attached link) and Navies have less ships, which therefore become more valuable to them, we may see some vessels regain a level of protection. Many Navies have missiles and torpedoes with tactical nuclear warheads, but it takes time to escalate to the use of them. It is more likely that vessels will face supersonic missiles with large explosive warheads, or torpedoes that explode under their hulls to break their backs. The people who have contributed dismissing armour on the grounds that nuclear weapons exist miss some of what history has taught us - Nations are very reluctant to use nukes and innovations in warheads and penetrative effect tends to lead to innovation in armour...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm
No amount of armour can defeat an under-the-keel torpedo explosion. Absolutely none.
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
As armour improves (see attached link) and Navies have less ships, which therefore become more valuable to them, we may see some vessels regain a level of protection. Many Navies have missiles and torpedoes with tactical nuclear warheads, but it takes time to escalate to the use of them. It is more likely that vessels will face supersonic missiles with large explosive warheads, or torpedoes that explode under their hulls to break their backs. The people who have contributed dismissing armour on the grounds that nuclear weapons exist miss some of what history has taught us - Nations are very reluctant to use nukes and innovations in warheads and penetrative effect tends to lead to innovation in armour...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm
No amount of armour can defeat an under-the-keel torpedo explosion. Absolutely none.
I wouldn't ever say never T. Unless you have a crystal ball that can read the future with 100% accurracy (then you wouldn't need a job, would you?). you have to assume Someone will come up with something. It may not resemble Krupps armor, or Chobham armour , but what about some form of super-reactive armor? Something that counters the reactive force? Heck for all we know there may be a forcefield in the furture. Who would have thought of Weaving armor? But that is what Kevlar is. Or using explosives as armor (reactive armor)? The only think I'm sure of is there somewhere , someone is working on the next armor. And some other boffin is working on a counter to it.[:)]
Not with the multistage (or multipart) warhead... these will have the first part punch through the simple plate, then the second charge will punch though the inner armor... i've heard of RPG's with up to three stages of warheads... who knows how many are in the anti-ship missiles (assuming they exist and are not a rumor)?ORIGINAL: Iridium
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
i read a while ago that some missiles have shaped-charged warheads, and some have multi-part shaped-charged warheads (to punch through multiple layers of armor) - don't know if it is true, though.
Even if true, can't this be defeated with a simple plate of metal offset from the hull proper?
Supposedly, the BELKNAP caught fire after the collision - and here is the result:ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
The Shefield,Amazon and OH Perry class ships were all built to a large degree of Aluminum. (Aliminium for Dixie and Sprior). It burns very well. They were designed in an age when nuclear war was thought to be the most likely event.Weight , and top-hamper , was more important than survivability. Stark , as an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate (FFG originially a PFG) was considered a "throw-away convoy escort). Even before the Falklands and the Stark , the USN had decided to go back to steel warships with some armoring--The Arleigh Burke for example. This was not due to hostile fire, but to a collision between USS Belknap (A CG) and the USS JF Kennedy. Belknap was sheered off to the waterline. The Spruance class was already built , and the Ticonderoga class cruisers were based on the Spruance hull, so there were not to many changes there , but the Arliegh Burkes are pretty solid ships. It will be informative to see how they hold up to hostile fire.
The Shefield,Amazon and OH Perry class ships were all built to a large degree of Aluminum.
I would rather spend the money up front and see our ships armored alot better than they are.........USS Cole cost us how much money to repair? 250 million dollars!!!!!!!!!
All by a few guys in a small boat loaded with explosives.
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Terminus
No amount of armour can defeat an under-the-keel torpedo explosion. Absolutely none.
I wouldn't ever say never T. Unless you have a crystal ball that can read the future with 100% accurracy (then you wouldn't need a job, would you?). you have to assume Someone will come up with something. It may not resemble Krupps armor, or Chobham armour , but what about some form of super-reactive armor? Something that counters the reactive force? Heck for all we know there may be a forcefield in the furture. Who would have thought of Weaving armor? But that is what Kevlar is. Or using explosives as armor (reactive armor)? The only think I'm sure of is there somewhere , someone is working on the next armor. And some other boffin is working on a counter to it.[:)]
T is right about the torpedoes, but armour can mitigate the effect and damage. My point was more to do with the defeat of missile warheads. Modern torpedo warheads are designed to break the backs of vessels, but warhead size is optimised for a certain size of ship. Larger ships are harder to destroy with one hit. Currently Western Navies are suffering badly from neglecting ASW for many years. The submarine has never been so dangerous. In two recent exercises that I know of, a single German built submarine was able to "sink" entire task forces without once being detected. The use of the same countermeasures ejected by submarines to ensure that the torpedo explodes away from the ship is probably the best defence. Towed decoys are also effective (and have also found a use in modern air to air combat).
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I wouldn't ever say never T. Unless you have a crystal ball that can read the future with 100% accurracy (then you wouldn't need a job, would you?). you have to assume Someone will come up with something. It may not resemble Krupps armor, or Chobham armour , but what about some form of super-reactive armor? Something that counters the reactive force? Heck for all we know there may be a forcefield in the furture. Who would have thought of Weaving armor? But that is what Kevlar is. Or using explosives as armor (reactive armor)? The only think I'm sure of is there somewhere , someone is working on the next armor. And some other boffin is working on a counter to it.[:)]
T is right about the torpedoes, but armour can mitigate the effect and damage. My point was more to do with the defeat of missile warheads. Modern torpedo warheads are designed to break the backs of vessels, but warhead size is optimised for a certain size of ship. Larger ships are harder to destroy with one hit. Currently Western Navies are suffering badly from neglecting ASW for many years. The submarine has never been so dangerous. In two recent exercises that I know of, a single German built submarine was able to "sink" entire task forces without once being detected. The use of the same countermeasures ejected by submarines to ensure that the torpedo explodes away from the ship is probably the best defence. Towed decoys are also effective (and have also found a use in modern air to air combat).
Is this regarding to brand new series of German submarines?
Leo "Apollo11"
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: Apollo11
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
T is right about the torpedoes, but armour can mitigate the effect and damage. My point was more to do with the defeat of missile warheads. Modern torpedo warheads are designed to break the backs of vessels, but warhead size is optimised for a certain size of ship. Larger ships are harder to destroy with one hit. Currently Western Navies are suffering badly from neglecting ASW for many years. The submarine has never been so dangerous. In two recent exercises that I know of, a single German built submarine was able to "sink" entire task forces without once being detected. The use of the same countermeasures ejected by submarines to ensure that the torpedo explodes away from the ship is probably the best defence. Towed decoys are also effective (and have also found a use in modern air to air combat).
Is this regarding to brand new series of German submarines?
One involved a Type 212A, the other involved a South African Type 209/1400. These were exercise sinkings though. I am sure that once real torpedoes were detected the crews of vessels would be far more alert and helicopters would have been causing the stalking sub more issues. The fact, remains however, that the most modern diesel boats are virtually undetectable.
The fact, remains however, that the most modern diesel boats are virtually undetectable.
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
The fact, remains however, that the most modern diesel boats are virtually undetectable.
unless you are using active sonar, which the surface ships would routinely do if they are under attack... they are generally loathe to use it (i think) because it reveals their position, but once the first ship becomes a "flaming datum", skippers are going to start pinging and make it very uncomfortable for any subs in the vicinity.
Well, it helps reduce signature, but certainly doesn't eliminate it... the flexible coating helps reduce the noise signature when moving through the water to make the boats more silent.ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
The fact, remains however, that the most modern diesel boats are virtually undetectable.
unless you are using active sonar, which the surface ships would routinely do if they are under attack... they are generally loathe to use it (i think) because it reveals their position, but once the first ship becomes a "flaming datum", skippers are going to start pinging and make it very uncomfortable for any subs in the vicinity.
Isn't thinck coat of rubber (and other "hush hush stuff") on submarine's hull supposed to negate this to quite a big extend (IIRC Russian submarines had 10-20 centimetes of it = 10-15 inches)?
Leo "Apollo11"
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Well, it helps reduce signature, but certainly doesn't eliminate it... the flexible coating helps reduce the noise signature when moving through the water to make the boats more silent.ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Hi all,
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
unless you are using active sonar, which the surface ships would routinely do if they are under attack... they are generally loathe to use it (i think) because it reveals their position, but once the first ship becomes a "flaming datum", skippers are going to start pinging and make it very uncomfortable for any subs in the vicinity.
Isn't thinck coat of rubber (and other "hush hush stuff") on submarine's hull supposed to negate this to quite a big extend (IIRC Russian submarines had 10-20 centimetes of it = 10-15 inches)?
Leo "Apollo11"
i will mention that there is technology available that allows one to passively detect silent objects in the water by use of their "acoustic shadow"... the noisier the underwater environment, the batter it works (supposedly)... however, i don't know if it is in service yet.
