Naval analysis provided by ComNavOps, Commander - Naval Opinions
Pages
▼
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Mobile Device Display Change
Readers, I've modified the settings on the blog to display the desktop view on mobile devices. Ominously, the preview does not look good. Let me know if I've inadvertently made the problem worse. Thanks.
By the way, quick question if we were to bring back the battleship what should the armor thickness be on various sections of the ship. I assume an all or nothing armor scheme. What about armored cruisers? Would they be gun cruisers with missiles like the battleship main guns mixed with missiles?
Hmm hard to say the armor would have to be proof against current and future threats. Because if we bring back the battleship or armored cruiser we might kick off a an arms race against Russia and China who might or might not build our own. So proof against shell fire and missiles would be perfered. Though that’s just my speculation I’d like to see yours in that future post.
Or what about armored flight decks for carriers to protect aircraft facilities, fuel, ammunition and the planes themselves below. And to easily fix damage to the deck and get aircraft operations going again? Sorry if I’m asking too many questions I’m very curious.
Nimitz class carriers and their immediate predecessors have armored flight decks and additional armor over and around critical spaces. Forrestals have been cited to have 1.5" thick flight decks. I've never seen a good figure for a Nimitz but it is presumably somewhere in the same neighborhood.
A couple inches of flight deck will likely not stop a direct hit by a missile but it will, most certainly, help limit damage. This was graphically demonstrated in the Enterprise and Forrestal conflagrations.
Yep the 64mm of Kevlar over vital spaces. Even having a flight deck can help detonate the missile away from the more critical bowels of the ship peferbly the missile should be shot down. The last things in a carrier that should fail are the catapults and the aircraft. The Kirov’s have 76mm of plating around the reactor too.
Just showing the desktop site here
ReplyDeleteSame here.
ReplyDeleteSo is that better (shows the full desktop with archives) or worse?
DeleteArchives are visible but reading on a cell phone is less comfortable. I am enlarging the text with my fingers.
DeleteI'll give it another couple days and then reset it to the original if that's what people prefer. Bear with me!
DeletePreferred the previous settings
ReplyDeleteI think that there was a link to show the desktop version, so the reader could choose. But I am not sure.
DeleteI'll give it another couple days and then reset it to the original if that's what people prefer. Bear with me!
DeleteSure thing.
DeleteNo worries! In fact it’s easier to navigate with the various tags to navigate all the articles. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, quick question if we were to bring back the battleship what should the armor thickness be on various sections of the ship. I assume an all or nothing armor scheme. What about armored cruisers? Would they be gun cruisers with missiles like the battleship main guns mixed with missiles?
ReplyDeleteThis is not a short, simple answer. I've got a post coming on this very subject.
DeleteWhat I'll offer is, consider the most likely threats and how you would armor against them. It's quite a bit different from the WWII armor scheme.
Hmm hard to say the armor would have to be proof against current and future threats. Because if we bring back the battleship or armored cruiser we might kick off a an arms race against Russia and China who might or might not build our own. So proof against shell fire and missiles would be perfered. Though that’s just my speculation I’d like to see yours in that future post.
Delete*Their own* my apologies.
DeleteOr what about armored flight decks for carriers to protect aircraft facilities, fuel, ammunition and the planes themselves below. And to easily fix damage to the deck and get aircraft operations going again? Sorry if I’m asking too many questions I’m very curious.
ReplyDeleteNimitz class carriers and their immediate predecessors have armored flight decks and additional armor over and around critical spaces. Forrestals have been cited to have 1.5" thick flight decks. I've never seen a good figure for a Nimitz but it is presumably somewhere in the same neighborhood.
DeleteA couple inches of flight deck will likely not stop a direct hit by a missile but it will, most certainly, help limit damage. This was graphically demonstrated in the Enterprise and Forrestal conflagrations.
Yep the 64mm of Kevlar over vital spaces. Even having a flight deck can help detonate the missile away from the more critical bowels of the ship peferbly the missile should be shot down. The last things in a carrier that should fail are the catapults and the aircraft. The Kirov’s have 76mm of plating around the reactor too.
DeleteI would go back to mobile, maybe have link to archives in the drop down menu.
ReplyDelete