RE: Chobham armor on ships?

RE: 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

String -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 8:58:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: 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? Multi-part charges are specifically designed to deal with that are they not?

AW1Steve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 9:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: 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.[:)]

AW1Steve -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 9:27:13 PM)
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.

goodboyladdie -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 9:49:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: 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.[:)] 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).

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 9:59:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: 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? 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)?

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 10:03:37 PM)
quote: 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. Supposedly, the BELKNAP caught fire after the collision - and here is the result: [image]local://upfiles/7543/9365AB0933DC4487934994F21DD7D466.jpg[/image]

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 10:14:55 PM)
Another cruiser - the USS Worden, was accidentally hit by a Shrike missile off Vietnam which shredded her electronics suite... this was because the shrapnel from the Shrike easily penetrated the aluminum superstructure... this was also supposed to be another reason the USN went back to steel ships.

2ndACR -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/8/2009 11:45:12 PM)
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.

Dili -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 5:57:13 AM)
quote: The Shefield,Amazon and OH Perry class ships were all built to a large degree of Aluminum. Sheffield had no aluminium it was all steel. The anti-fire system went out of action with the hit. quote: 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. You do want to armor the whole hull?! How do you armor whole ship aginst a 500kg hit? I hope you know that is impossible right?

stuman -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 6:04:33 AM)
Well, just use whatever my PT boats in game are made of. They seem to be indestructible.

Jorm -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 6:04:54 AM)
mt

YankeeAirRat -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 7:08:21 AM)
The downside with being heavily armored is that you have to sacrifice things to make up for that weight. For example of things you have to give up are speed, fuel, sensor suites, weapons, heck even crew. That being said remember with the Cole, the IED wasn't as bad as it could have been. Most of the force was sucked up by the water because the shape was pointed the wrong way. Even with the big hole in the side of the ship, they were able to counter flood in time and keep it going to prevent anymore damage. On top of that they were able to get the fires caused by the IED out in good time. As to the Stark she was actually struck by two missile, however the second one didn't explode but did spread highly volitale rocket fuel all over the place. Damage control efforts prevented the fire from being worst and saved the ship. However, even after being struck general assessment is that if need she could of fought her way back to either Bahrain or to another friendly port. Not against a major raid mind you, but she could still use her 76mm deck gun and her sensors could still operate. In between that you had the Samuel B. Roberts who struck a 1901 Russian made M-08 floating contact mine. Again through some superior damage control the Roberts was able to make it to Dubai under her own power. Where she was brought back to the US on a lighter as well. If your belief that World War Two ships were better built I would suggest you look up the British Z class destroyer HMS Zealous and read about her loss during the 1967 War of Port Said. Named the Eilat after being transfered to the Isreali Navy she was struck by four 1100lb warheads from SS-N-2 Styx missiles launched by Egyptian missile boats. She sank in under an hour with 41 dead and about a hundred injured.

Apollo11 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 8:38:08 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: 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.[:)] 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"

goodboyladdie -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 9:10:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: 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.[:)] 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" 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.

Apollo11 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 9:22:40 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: 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.[:)] 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. Ahh... yes... U212A class... most certainly best classic subs nowadays... Leo "Apollo11"

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 10:00:26 AM)
quote: 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.

Apollo11 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 10:06:33 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: 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"

Terminus -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 10:33:58 AM)
The Germans used rubber on their boats as well, during WWII. Alberich, I think the coating was called.

rtrapasso -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 11:42:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: 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" 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. 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.

goodboyladdie -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 12:12:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: 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" 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. 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. I had to end my last post before I was finished - childcare! Fuel cell technology and other AIP designs are meaning that the only reason that SSNs are better for a Navy with a world wide commitment is the speed of strategic movement. In all other aspects, especially in a littoral environment, the modern conventional sub can be argued to be better. Despite the cost of fuel, they are also cheaper to run! Robert is right about active sonar, but Navies have quickly grasped that just making active sonars more powerful is not a long term answer. As subs get quieter, looking for the noiseless hole becomes a way of using this low acoustic signature against them. Sound absorbing technology is also being heavily invested in, but as the loss of the F117 over the Balkans proved, the use of different frequencies can defeat stealth measures. The US Navy is trying to use the electrical impulses created by the movement of an object through water to detect subs, in the same way that the premier ocean predator, the shark does. The exercise results I mentioned did not feature real attacks, which would definitely lead to a lot of active sonar use. To get back to the original article I posted, the armour mentioned at the bottom of the article is the most significant for our discussion. It is even tougher than the first material, but is flexible enough to be shaped. As these processes become cheaper, we may see warships built from this advanced molecular steel, rather than ordinary steel...

herwin -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 12:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: 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. Subs with passive sonars can hear an active sonar much further than vice versa. Think about homing countermeasures! (I modelled an active sonar system for my PhD dissertation, and I used to model submarine sonar systems for the Navy.)

herwin -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 12:43:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: 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" 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. 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. We use sound shadowing in our robot work.

Apollo11 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 1:58:02 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie ...but as the loss of the F117 over the Balkans proved, the use of different frequencies can defeat stealth measures. Just a quick sidenote... the F-117 was, apparently, shot down using SA-3 with TV guidance (it was local ex-Yugoslav modification - I spend 12 months of my life with those 20 years ago)... the radar was not used at all (supposedly)... Leo "Apollo11"

goodboyladdie -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 2:46:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie ...but as the loss of the F117 over the Balkans proved, the use of different frequencies can defeat stealth measures. Just a quick sidenote... the F-117 was, apparently, shot down using SA-3 with TV guidance (it was local ex-Yugoslav modification - I spend 12 months of my life with those 20 years ago)... the radar was not used at all (supposedly)... Leo "Apollo11" I read an interview with the guy behind the shoot down recently. He said it had been noticed that the F-117A "appeared" on radar occasionally when subjected to a different wavelength. They set up on a known ingress route with altered equipment that emitted the different wavelength and waited... I think this had as much to do with this plane retiring as "budgetary" reasons...

Apollo11 -> RE: Chobham armor on ships? (1/9/2009 2:53:25 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie ...but as the loss of the F117 over the Balkans proved, the use of different frequencies can defeat stealth measures. Just a quick sidenote... the F-117 was, apparently, shot down using SA-3 with TV guidance (it was local ex-Yugoslav modification - I spend 12 months of my life with those 20 years ago)... the radar was not used at all (supposedly)... I read an interview with the guy behind the shoot down recently. He said it had been noticed that the F-117A "appeared" on radar occasionally when subjected to a different wavelength. They set up on a known ingress route with altered equipment that emitted the different wavelength and waited... I think this had as much to do with this plane retiring as "budgetary" reasons... Nothing is completely radar invisible (i.e. stealthy)... I remember that even whan I was in the army (i.e. 20 years ago) the SA-3 battery did receive the training data from Russia (this was some kind of data tape cartridge) with F-117 radar signature... What ultimately did shot down F-117A was "human factor" - the routes for USA planes were always the same (cardinal mistake! [X(]) and TV guided SA-3 (instead of radar to tract target TV, as passive source) was used by simply sitting below standard route... Leo "Apollo11"

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.235046