Chobham armor on ships? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Iridium -> Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 5:22:49 PM)

We're at a point in ship design where the standard is to not use hardened armor (I can't recall seeing any current day ships with any) so my question is: Why haven't we seen any new advances in armor ala Chobham applied to ships?

A few thoughts come to mind; it might not be tough or durable enough to deal with the weapons encountered. Too expensive on large scales or perhaps not even viable at these sizes.

This all said, I'm still waiting for the next phase of armor vs weapons on naval vessels.[:D]



Terminus -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 5:23:39 PM)

Too expensive.



Dili -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 5:42:27 PM)

Too heavy. Not appropriate for anti-ship missiles which are by definition heavy.



Mike Solli -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 6:13:35 PM)

Most definitely too heavy.



Iridium -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 6:25:09 PM)

Well, then why not a particularly hard alloy of Titanium or something of that nature? Besides the brittleness of Titanium it can be made to be quite durable in alloys.

EDIT: I find this interesting because we can build reactive armor and the like but it's actual applications are limited to only a few, if any uses.



Terminus -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 6:27:31 PM)

Titanium is a bitch to weld, as far as I know. Also very expensive.



wwengr -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 6:50:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

Well, then why not a particularly hard alloy of Titanium or something of that nature? Besides the brittleness of Titanium it can be made to be quite durable in alloys.

EDIT: I find this interesting because we can build reactive armor and the like but it's actual applications are limited to only a few, if any uses.


Recent commodity bench mark prices:

  • Hot rolled carbon steel plate (used in ship building) - $1.15/kg
  • 304 Stainelss Steel (too expenisve for most ship hulls and large structural elements) - $3.48/kg
  • Ferro-Titanium Alloy (70% Ti and cheapest Ti alloy) - $4.72/kg


Anti-shiiping missles and torpedoes are simply too powerful. Armoring up ships is too expensive (even with carbon steel) and severly limits available displacement for ship systems, combat systems, and cargo. The emphasis has become:

  • Doctrine to avoid getting shot at
  • Defensive systems to prevent detection/targeting
  • Defensive systems to misdirect incoming weapons
  • Defensive systems to destroy incoming weapons
  • Structural design to dissipate energy when the ship is hit
  • Selected protection of critical systems with advanced armor


Titanium alloys would be ideal, but would raise the price of a frigate hull to that of an a carrier. Not only is the commodity more expensive, but it costs more time, effort, and tools to cut, shape, and weld titanium.



herwin -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 7:12:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Too expensive.


Yes, far too expensive!



Shark7 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 7:22:18 PM)

As others have said, the anti-shipping missiles are basically far too powerfull for armor to matter much. That said it is interesting to note that the only US cruiser that could stand up to an SS-N-19 Shipwreck, AS-6 Kitchen, or SS-N-20 Sandbox was the Long Beach, which did have steel construction, and was a product of the 1960s when guns were still viable. Any other ship smaller than a battleship is essentially a 1 hit kill from those 3 missiles.

Modern ships depend on the ability to avoid being hit in the first place to survive. Hence the electronics, countermeasures, and point defenses found on them.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 7:49:46 PM)

But the Russian Akula class was rumored to have a titanium hull ?



Terminus -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 7:52:07 PM)

Not the Akula, the Alfa. They never built others with titanium hulls. Even the Soviets weren't moronic enough to make that mistake twice.



wwengr -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 7:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

But the Russian Akula class was rumored to have a titanium hull ?


During the cold war (and beyond) money has been No Object when it comes to submarine hull construction. Costs to build US attack subs and boomers make the expense of frigates and destroyers seem trivial. The Navy has developed super strong materials, structural designs, and coatings to reduce expansion/contraction from pressure changes and make them super smooth to reduce drag. This allows submarines to manuever more and make less noise.

Any ability to withstand a hit is simply a by product of the main effort to make subs quiet, fast, quiet and quiet.



JWE -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 8:17:43 PM)

Most modern anti-ship missles have a pop-up terminal attack profile, that renders discussion of belt armor, nugatory. Most modern warships are constructed of aluminum, or aluminum alloys that burn under sufficiently high temperatures, thereby maintaining a very high critical temperature which has very bad implications for things like magazines, or the warheads on ‘ready’ weapons.

In the last decade or so, people have been thinking of carbo/boro/metallic epoxys as a replacement for aluminum. It has structural modulus characteristics stronger than any metal or alloy, but cannot be “worked”.

Perhaps, in the future, ship components will be molded (in a monster freakin mold) and then bonded together.



2ndACR -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 8:24:31 PM)

If using Titanium, do not let a Sharpie pen near the hull.......it eats thru Titanium like acid. Read about that in a book describing the manufacture of the SR71. All the trials and problems making the greatest plane ever. That can never be built again..........not without huge cost  anyway.



wild_Willie2 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 8:32:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

If using Titanium, do not let a Sharpie pen near the hull


LOL, I though you where saying "do not like a sharpie penetrate near the hull...

I had to actually look up the word "sharpie"...[:D][:D][:D]



2ndACR -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 8:47:04 PM)

OOPs, use them all the time at work........permanent marker. I can just imagine some sailor drawing a calender against the hull only to watch the side of the ship melt away and water pour in. Or some chief saying "mount that right here" as he draws on the hull a marking line.



RUPD3658 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 8:53:03 PM)

I think a Sharpie could down a Nate anyday. [;)]



rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 9:28:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not the Akula, the Alfa. They never built others with titanium hulls. Even the Soviets weren't moronic enough to make that mistake twice.

The Mike was titanium... supposedly the Russians built
1 Mike, 7 ALfa, 1 PAPA and 4 Sierra with titanium.



Mike Solli -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 9:31:00 PM)

Interesting Bob.  I always thought there were more Alfas.

Edit: Guess I read too many Tom Clancy novels. [:D]



Apollo11 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 10:12:00 PM)

Hi all,

How would best of WWII ships (DDs, CAs, BBs) fare against current missile anti-ship threat?


Leo "Apollo11"



wild_Willie2 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 10:20:51 PM)

Maybe a late war BB could stand up to a single pop up, through the deck ASM missile attack, without being sunk outright....

Most other ships would be in BIG trouble when struck by a modern 500 pound ASM high-explosive blast warhead....



Jorm -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 10:35:46 PM)

Whats a Sharpie pen ?

Do you have a reference for this, id be interested in learning more about how this pen can affect titanium ??



thegreatwent -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 10:45:54 PM)

I have felt for a long time that modern warships are a bunch of eggshells armed with hammers. That is why I joined the Army[:D]



Mynok -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 10:47:29 PM)


Maybe we should just go back to wooden ships? It's a much more renewable resource. [:'(]



thegreatwent -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 10:52:27 PM)

quote:

Maybe we should just go back to wooden ships? It's a much more renewable resource.


Plus when they blow up they leave lots of floaty bits to climb up on [:D]



2ndACR -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 10:53:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorm

Whats a Sharpie pen ?

Do you have a reference for this, id be interested in learning more about how this pen can affect titanium ??


Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpie_(marker)

Get the book Skunk Works written by Ben Rich........tells all about all the problems they had with titanium.



AW1Steve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 11:20:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not the Akula, the Alfa. They never built others with titanium hulls. Even the Soviets weren't moronic enough to make that mistake twice.


Errr.....there was the Mike , T.[8|]



AW1Steve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 11:22:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not the Akula, the Alfa. They never built others with titanium hulls. Even the Soviets weren't moronic enough to make that mistake twice.

The Mike was titanium... supposedly the Russians built
1 Mike, 7 ALfa, 1 PAPA and 4 Sierra with titanium.


Actually six Alfa's. One was completely rebuilt after a "mishap".



AW1Steve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 11:23:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

How would best of WWII ships (DDs, CAs, BBs) fare against current missile anti-ship threat?


Leo "Apollo11"


Very well. I was on Guam when they used a WW2 cleveland class light cruiser as a target. It absorbed a tremendous number of missiles, shells and torpedo's.



AW1Steve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/6/2009 11:25:03 PM)

Modern USN do have armor. And the carriers have kevlar armor (no I'm not making this up). [:)]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125