Slitherine

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?

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.

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.

Art by the amazing Dixie

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?

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.

quote:

The Shefield,Amazon and OH Perry class ships were all built to a large degree of Aluminum.

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.

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).

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

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"

Art by the amazing Dixie

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.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

The fact, remains however, that the most modern diesel boats are virtually undetectable.

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.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

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"

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.

Art by the amazing Dixie

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

...but as the loss of the F117 over the Balkans proved, the use of different frequencies can defeat stealth measures.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

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"

Art by the amazing Dixie

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...

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE