tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post2877578460929792413..comments2024-03-28T02:26:00.323-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Conceputal Armor For Modern ShipsComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51934845765648100652022-12-21T19:59:51.943-08:002022-12-21T19:59:51.943-08:00The problem as I see aside from the Navy wasting 2...The problem as I see aside from the Navy wasting 25 billion dollars on the Zumwalt class destroyer and LCS which are currently completeley useless is that our ships designs are reactive and politically driven. The Hypersonic Missile threat gets medtia attention and suddenly the Navy wants Hypersonic Missiles on every platform. Dazzlers like Helios are a great concept and can be effective but not at the expense of proven self defense systems (CIWS) removed from USS Preble to add a dazzling laser that will be ineffective in bad weather. We are currenrly headed down a trajectory where every major surface combatent will be basically be destroyer made of aluminum that would get easiy sunk in a missile attack as the Russian Slava class was recently in the Black Sea. Yes, some of our warsips should be armored but not every tin can. I would like to see us repalce the last 12 ticondorga class CG's by building modern nuclear powered battleships with heavy armor as described herein this blog but around 35,000 tons each with with mix of old and new weapons to both protect the CVN and deatach to lead a SAG to attack. Each vessel armed with (9) 5" gun mounts, 6 CIWS, 400 VLS cells for Standard SAM, Land attack + others Missiles, 60 hypersonnic anti-ship Misssiles, TT for minimal ASW capability and most importanrly a large hangar bay for multiplle ASW helicopters + thousands of drones that can perform ASW, ASuW, Swarm attacks, Kamakazi attacks, reconissance, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21430943114590084422022-10-24T10:40:48.184-07:002022-10-24T10:40:48.184-07:00Sorry, the above should have read HY-80 and HY-100...Sorry, the above should have read HY-80 and HY-100. I have seen HY-180, I am not familiar with these steels, but the ships certainly need more protection than that afforded by a single strake of HY-80 steel!Kennethnipper64noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90535255283908012922022-10-24T03:40:20.953-07:002022-10-24T03:40:20.953-07:00The Flt 3 Arleigh Burke's are, as I have read,...The Flt 3 Arleigh Burke's are, as I have read, to have the Hs-80 or Hs-100 steel used for armor. The USS Cole had a strake of Hs-80 that blocked the upward spread of the blast from the explosive laden boat. / Since anti tank missiles (or is it just cluster bombs?) have top attack capabilities, if anti ship missles can be so equipped, would it not be a good idea to have deck armor equal to the side armor (Hs-100?) The idea of rearranging the outer internal spaces to act as sacrificial spaces harks back to the cellular system used on early iron ships, sounds good. The KMS Bismarck was certainly not helped that her communication lines were above her armored deck.Kennethnipper64noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39751020768954437762022-07-18T16:27:02.306-07:002022-07-18T16:27:02.306-07:00Now, as a case in point for this whole discussion,...Now, as a case in point for this whole discussion, I know its not the most rigurous but hear me out: I have been for quite a while designing ship concepts, Im studying aerospace engineering but naval is lovely too, with one of my last projects, still ongoing, is a modern battleship idea for an alt hist setting. The concept is based on the one true fact that BBs are objectively awesome, but it's actually quite viable (Idk how economically viable, but Zumwalt and LCS exist so that's not unrealistic XD). I dunno if you are interested about the concept's details or my research, but long story short it is basically unsinkable (famous last words), with roughly half her weight devoted to defense as old BBs, a ridiculous firepower and great redundancy, being able to fire even with the superstructure burnt to rubble and sail with cracks on the keel. Most of that weight comes from the armor scheme, which is deep and full of electric and non-explosive reactive plates embeded in a very thin honeycomb full of fluffy textolite act as a filler, as well as hard plates of plastic/ceramic composites that shatter small rounds and stop large shrapenel, followed by a lot of foam (I had a bunch of volume and no idea what to do with it, so might as well make it overkill shrapenel and flood proofing). There are a lot of active systems but tis getting quite long... <br />Between looking at sims, doing shitty ballpark calculations and miserably failing to find half-non-trash info on tank armor performance, I was able to estimate tge citadel's belt to be comparable to 2.5m of class B armor, and the deck as 2m, with an extended armor of about 0.5m equivallence, which I figured would be enough to stop the BROACH warhead, any SAP cruise missile I know of, and even mid-ranged 16in shells for good measure XD; but not prevent damage from the explosives, which means that a frontal direct hit will still tear holes in the bow, shred protected sensors or set off VLS, but glancing or near misses will not (theyll still damage ofc). The citadel is strong enough to warrant inmunity from all the way up to large supersonic penetrating missiles and even then being so demmanding on them (long, sub-caliber) that either range is cut to negligibility or damage potential is. In both cases, the ship has enough missiles to repel a Granit salvo, even stand a few hits (2-3 most before a dangerous mission kill, remember it'd need some serious handicaps to the warhead, but these are carrier killers!) and enough armor to shrug off anything smaller. Ballistic missiles though still pose a killing threat and fire from small arms can still get you regardless of armor, so the ship isnt invincible, but one requires pretty difficult targeting and the other is almost obsessively engineered around preventing it...<br /><br /><br />I must note thar these figures are more like the average of a broad range of conflicting or inaccurate info and assumptions, armor research is very secretive T-T. TAKE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. Plus that vessel has the cost of a supercarrier and is for an alt setting with tech from the second half of this century with cold-war-peak level funding, the viability and strategy is questionable, but you cant deny the awesome! and the fact that it is technically no big issue, the that say you cant armor ships are barely right stuck with WW2 tech against top modern stuff...<br />If anyone is interested in the details or wants to know the specific assumptions or process I made, just ask I'll be glad to reply, maybe by email or smth as its not fully on topic I think? it is a massive project so I cant list everything here, sorry...Antares888https://www.blogger.com/profile/05144445860730828140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16235250036826926562022-07-18T16:26:22.142-07:002022-07-18T16:26:22.142-07:00I totally agree on the main premise, armor doesnt ...I totally agree on the main premise, armor doesnt have to be impervious and it doesnt have to be the thing you rely on, just like no tanker wants to try out agsinst an enemy APFSDS. Having just a little bit of armor can be enough to force small missiles to use penetrators or shaped charges, easily halving their damage potential, while shielding like the battleships of old except using the techniques of modern armored vehicles would pretty much deny the use of "normal" one and a half ton missiles for anything other than tearing the superstructure down, and ships can still see without their radars, at the ranges of modern missiles all the info comes from networked (mainly airborne) assets anyway... And of course large fast missiles cant be spammed and are less flexible, which is better for active defenses.<br /><br />About armoring radars, yeah covering them on a layered composite of UHDPE and alumina would work, even better than steel (as if that was hard in this day and age lol), but its harder than it sounds and theyd still lose a lot of effectiveness after being hit (and some before)... <br /><br /><br />Antares888https://www.blogger.com/profile/05144445860730828140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5412430648980093352022-07-18T14:35:56.079-07:002022-07-18T14:35:56.079-07:00Reading through your concept, I must say there are...Reading through your concept, I must say there are a bunch of inaccuracies, most of them being overly conservative!<br />I first find your approach odd, armor is much easier to redesign than internals as it is just a weight and change in the center of mass compared to all the internals...<br /><br />Second, and what I find most attrocious is to simply cut the length, you cant do that and save weight proportionally! First length is mostly not about space but about speed, the more streamlined, the lesser the front and wave drag and the higher the natural speed (the nonzero speed at which wave drag is minimized). Cutting the length by 17% will reduce the natural speed by the same fraction and force you to have a wider, deeper or blockier hull to keep the same displaced volume (and the bow anr stern generate less bouyancy), which will -at least- raise frontal drag by the same fraction as nat speed. If you are to touch the shspe of the hull, know what are you doing, there are 101 courses online ;)<br /><br />A third general point is that you can shave a lot more weight, fuel from the more efficient engines and lighter ship, similarly smaller engines, waay lighter transmission systems we have today, as mentioned the lesser crew (thats at least 1000T), but also better structures, simple electric system replacing steam, all the massive structural considerations of the guns. Electronics are light but bulky and air isnt free... That is why I said it's better to start with a built ship and add armor, it will only weigh her down and change stability and engine requirements. <br /><br />As a Fermi estimate, adding a 10cm belt (which may stop a Harpoon but not prevent it from exploding and ripping a hole. Note it could be an al, or nothing too) to a Burke would weigh about 3kT. If instead of steel we use titanium it'd be 2kT with an added bit of fire ressistance and trouble repairing XD, and for modern balistic protection composites like UHDPE and ceramics it could quite easily be little more than rounding up the displacement to 10kT, I guess tank armoring techniques could be even better but good luck finding a number not completely made up... The weight is close to the center of mass and the increase in machinery needs is small (proportional to displacement), so it's done, no need to complicate more :) (unless you want more detail ofc). A deck would be a bit more complicated but you get the point. Now if you want to armor against penetrating warheads like BROACH you are going to need the high end of battleship level armor, and preventing a hole being torn by the massive explosive warheads would require some minute design and probably a lot of depth, torpedo defense style...<br />Anyway, what I wanted is to show the great path ahead that there's with engineering and point out for future refinement ;)Antares888https://www.blogger.com/profile/05144445860730828140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12427527599897873372022-07-18T14:08:51.622-07:002022-07-18T14:08:51.622-07:00" rocket fuel isnt as violent when it flash f..." rocket fuel isnt as violent when it flash fires"<br /><br />That's a reasonably correct statement but of limited applicability as many Navy missiles use solid fuel which is susceptible to sympathetic detonation. See, for example, https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Sympathetic_detonation#:~:text=A%20sympathetic%20detonation%20%28SD%2C%20or%20SYDET%29%2C%20also%20called,or%20impact%20of%20primary%20or%20secondary%20blast%20fragments.<br /><br />For example, Standard Missiles SM-3/6 use Mk72 and Mk104 solid rocket fuel motors. See, https://rocket.com/defense/tactical-missiles/standard-missile-mk104-mk72<br /><br />Missile warhead explosives are, generally speaking, subject to sympathetic detonation and or fire/heat-induced detonation. Modern explosives are more stable but none are immune to external effects of fire/heat and shock, as far as I know.<br /><br />My understanding of the VLS walls is that they are intended to direct the effects of an explosion upward rather than sideways or down through the ship. I've been unable to verify this and I've been unable to verify the thickness or material of the walls.<br /><br />I'm not an explosives expert and I'm wandering out of my field, here.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21924853393983793472022-07-18T13:21:14.954-07:002022-07-18T13:21:14.954-07:00Not so hopeless, some crude estimations can be mad...Not so hopeless, some crude estimations can be made:<br /><br />Missiles are different to ammo magazines, rocket fuel isnt as violent when it flash fires, it only burns somewhat faster than it would if fired normally (maybe a few times faster), and their jet fuel burns well but doesnt flash so it's a lot more controllable. Modern warheads most definitely do not detonate and Id argue they represent a lower risk than the rockets tho it depends on the details...<br />So our main issue is not it blasting away the turret like a corch as in WW2 but more controlling a lot of heat being generated very quickly as well as a massive fire. VLS are already preadapted to that sort of thing as they have gas ducting for the exhaust, for emergencies you just need to keep it structurally sound for ten times longer with ten times as much flare ;)<br /><br />As you can see, placing it in the middle of the ship would be incredibly dangerous as it would set fire to absolutely everything and if it melts bury a massive hole through the keel. What we want is to be able to keep that thing cold, and for that you need two things: get rid of as much heat as possible, by dispersing it into the air; and absorb as much heat as possible, using refractory materials and a lot of water, boiling water takes about as much heat as 1/4 its weight in rocket fuel and 1/20ish in hydrocarbon-air flames, so ideally you can flood in about a cubic meter of water in the minute or so the event would take for each cell... If you are interested in the details, math or possible design, I'll be glad to dive deeper, but the point is that it is quite controllable compared to ammo magazines and is possible not to make it a catastrophic event...<br /><br />Note that VLS have very thick structures, I dont know how to post images here, sorry its my first time, but from images you can see they are comparable to a CL's armor, which is plenty enough for but a direct hit dealing with the esplosion's spalling, at least for subsonic missiles. I remember hearsay about a thick kevlar spall lining, but I cannot confirm...Antares888https://www.blogger.com/profile/05144445860730828140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83022297554695055102020-11-08T07:44:39.316-08:002020-11-08T07:44:39.316-08:00I feel like you missed a few things about what is ...I feel like you missed a few things about what is worthwhile for armor on a modern ship because you are making your conceptual armor design in a vacuum. Given that modern active air defense systems are guided, they do much better against fewer, larger weapons than numerous small ones. The goal of armor on a modern ship shouldn't so much be protection, as to force the enemy to use fewer larger weapons so that they can't overwhelm your active defensive systems as easily. Especially if your primary defensive systems consist of something resembling the Oto-Marla 76mm guns with their beam riding DART AA rounds, and hopefully semi-active homing rounds so you can utilize the full, extraordinary, fire rate of the weapon.<br />Also, unlike older American ships, an all or nothing armor scheme like the one you proposed isn't particularly viable anymore. the highest thickness of the main belt was designed to deflect the weapons of a similarly sized ship, a job which should be taken over by more effective guided AA guns in a modern ship, especially given the less predictable attack vector. the other difference that makes all or nothing armor less valuable is the extraordinary range of land based air power. A ship with it's bow destroyed was still dead even if it could float if it wasn't under allied air and naval cover, so German and japanese WW2 battleships tended to use more of progressive armor scheme to protect things like the bow and upper works. given how much farther land based air power can reach now than in WW2, any modern ship armor has to be designed on the premise that dead in the water is as good as sunk.<br /><br />As for armor design:<br />It isn't worth building armor on a modern ship to do more than stay afloat against 1 solid hit from a heavy antiship missile because those are exactly the threats that the active defensive systems are actually good at dealing with. the weapons we want to are armor to be dealing with the light artillery and anti-ship missiles that would easily overwhelm the active defense systems. having read some of the USN expectations for AP bomb penetration, it seems like 4 inches RHA is enough to stop a 500lb bomb dropped from 10,000 ft, which seems like a close approximation to today's smaller subsonic anti-ship missiles. that would point to 4 inches RHA on the surface being a pretty reasonable thickness of armor for a modern capital ship, which was incidentally the minimum hull thickness of the Iowa class battleships.<br />for internal design, it would make sense to borrow from modern oil tankers and use a double hull design, so that a penetration of the outer hull doesn't punch any holes for flooding in the inner one. if you fill the space between the hulls below the waterline with seawater, it provides some extra torpedo protection and prevents holes in the outer hull from causing ballast problems. it also gives you spall protection against serious hits on armored outer hull. if you then add a double layer strength deck (works like a honeycomb panel) at the main deck level for the same effect, your entire ship is an extremely strong double layer box tube that will be able to take a lot of hits without falling apart structurally. the level between the two upper strength decks also provides a convenient space to run all your pipes and cables through so that they don't go through any of your transverse bulkheads.<br />for protecting the sensor systems on the upper works, you can actually use non-conductive ceramic armors over sensor systems without reducing the radar or optical sensor's effectiveness that much. an ideal material for this might be laminated layers of tough plastic like PTFE or ETFE and Aluminum-OxynitrideMatthew Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18124611835755377221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63329103358676806832020-02-05T05:42:16.557-08:002020-02-05T05:42:16.557-08:00Apart from new materials ,how about the trimaran h...Apart from new materials ,how about the trimaran hull shape. The outer hulls could be armoured and, even if hit, the main hull would be protected. the propulsion jets and exhaust could be hidden between the hulls as well as making them stealthy. Critical systems would be placed on the main central hull while the outer hulls would be thee really just as a separated floating side skirt.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13111266471193890976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47552959399502313002019-01-07T18:02:57.447-08:002019-01-07T18:02:57.447-08:00I think the Zumwalt already is the size of a Cleve...I think the Zumwalt already is the size of a Cleveland with modern protection. PVLS is designed for a full VLS exploding and keeping the explosion out of adjacent VLS and the ship interior. There is armor in the design there. The ship also has a double bottom with water/fuel for protection. I think we need to think in terms of a heavy cruiser around the size of an Albany/Baltimore for top end air defense. Probably no more than 20 of them. AndyMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176205300516191412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43430392751527281022019-01-07T13:41:43.103-08:002019-01-07T13:41:43.103-08:00The land based C-RAM rounds self-detonate but I...The land based C-RAM rounds self-detonate but I'm not aware that the ship version does. The land munition is a high explosive incendiary tracer with self-destruct. The sea version uses tungsten armor piercing rounds and, to the best of my knowledge, does not self-destruct. Do you have a reference indicating otherwise?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59944337469948619312019-01-07T13:31:16.319-08:002019-01-07T13:31:16.319-08:00Atlanta's were also over 6 feet narrower at th...Atlanta's were also over 6 feet narrower at the water line and 1-2 less draft. The block coefficient between the 2 are about the same. .502 vs .505 - .5066. The weight goes for the C4I now.AndyMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176205300516191412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23721984177835415892019-01-07T13:24:00.747-08:002019-01-07T13:24:00.747-08:00I believe the Phalanx rounds self detonate now to ...I believe the Phalanx rounds self detonate now to avoid that scenario.AndyMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05176205300516191412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-38565094244436857572018-12-28T13:49:04.176-08:002018-12-28T13:49:04.176-08:00I think you're underestimating how important t...I think you're underestimating how important the deck would need to be in any engagement. Top attacking ATGMs have been a thing for decades, and I've heard that the Granit supposedly can do the same. If you armor the sides and then the heavy AShM goes through your deck it's just a waste of good metal. <br /><br />I can't think of a way you could actually armor the top of a VLS without compromising its functionality barring a massive cell with a massive door, which are rare, to say the least. Glitchrr36https://www.blogger.com/profile/00329927378229947692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90046011379257786782018-12-19T07:24:21.912-08:002018-12-19T07:24:21.912-08:00I've seen the 'outrigger' protection i...I've seen the 'outrigger' protection idea floated (no pun intended) before. It's conceptually plausible but I have no idea whether it's possible to construct a heavy, armored outrigger and still have it fulfill its primary purpose of floatation/stability for the main hull (to be truthful, I'm unclear on exactly what the primary function of an outrigger is on a larger ship!). Maybe a naval architect can chime in with some information for us.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30799937973382752712018-12-18T20:14:03.050-08:002018-12-18T20:14:03.050-08:00Again, sorry for the earlier derailment. I had ori...Again, sorry for the earlier derailment. I had originally seen the topic title and had something else in mind till I seen your comments on miscellaneous threats.<br /><br />I don't know your opinion on trimaran and their usefulness, but if the outer hulls were as long as the main hull, you could theoretically use them as spaced armor. <br /><br />If the outer hulls are constructed with their internal braces angle downward from the anticipated threat vector , and if they are of sufficient thickness, missiles blasts and the associated shrapnel fields could be directed away from the main hull. <br /><br /><br />If the outer hulls are only used to hold fuel as well, and with significant compartment walls to limited the damage to the neighboring fuel cells. You would have an effective armor scheme for dealing with sea skimming and possibly torpedo threats, if the outer hulls had a sufficiently deep draft.<br />Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42516502526416214062018-12-18T19:57:24.284-08:002018-12-18T19:57:24.284-08:00Thanks for pointing out Figure 2. I didn't not...Thanks for pointing out Figure 2. I didn't notice that and I assume kill radius was similar to the army's blast radius terminology. <br /><br /><br />As to the technical speculations and general theorizing of the article, I can't and won't dispute that. This is a 2009 study... the DOD hadn't even acknowledged the Chinese had an ASBM reach IOC until 2010.<br /><br />This will be my last post on ASBM in this topic. Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-69870082598589640082018-12-18T17:39:39.430-08:002018-12-18T17:39:39.430-08:00"You guys don't know how armor works at a..."You guys don't know how armor works at all."<br /><br />And, clearly, neither do you! I am not at all an armor expert but it's clear that you are neither an armor nor weapons expert.<br /><br />For example, the Javelin penetrates tank armor by using a tandem warhead to form narrow penetrating jets of metal. This is sufficient for destroying a tank but would produce little effect against a ship since the resulting penetration and explosion would be so small relative to the ship. Perhaps it might be possible to scale Javelin up to anti-ship size - I have no idea. Currently, no anti-ship missile that I'm aware of uses a Javelin type penetrator. There are non-authoritative reports of a shaped charge Russian anti-ship missile but that's unconfirmed. Russians claim all kinds of things.<br /><br />If you can cite some data, test, or report that proves a Tomahawk missile could penetrate battleship type armor, I'd be very interested to see it. Otherwise, you're simply speculating and, I suspect, incorrectly.<br /><br />A Kalibr missile, by the way, would likely have its KE reduced by half or so at impact since the weight of its propellant fuel would have been spent during the flight. The mass term in the KE calc would be reduced by the amount of the lost fuel.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32221844564231157392018-12-18T17:03:42.438-08:002018-12-18T17:03:42.438-08:00You guys don't know how armor works at all. Ki...You guys don't know how armor works at all. Kinetic energy between those two on impact are: 469.6 MJ for the Russian Kaliber missile compared to 211.1 MJ for the 16" shell (1300kg@M2.5 vs 900kg@2250ft/s) making assumption on what speed impact would be. That doesn't include the ~400kg warhead releasing unknown damage but is likely equivalent to the Tomahawk warhead explosion(also around that mass). <br /><br />You do realize that ATGM basically kill tanks right and those are pathetic in terms of penetration capability. The amount of armor needed to stop one of those missiles is ridiculous and as you said in other posts armor doesn't always stop a weapon but rather decreases damage. That is what anti-missile/projectile systems do, they mitigate damage.Example A javelin missile is design to penetrate 800mm+ RHA... that is 31 inches and it is light enough to be carried by a foot soldier with supposedly an 8kg warhead travelling who knows how fast. <br /><br />And you think a tomahawk style missile couldn't handle 16" of RHA. Penetration is all about material collisions and concentrating KE. If it didn't go "straight" through the armor, it would explode pretty far simply by the amount of energy and then the warhead would just help make it bigger. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-90972296366827288652018-12-18T12:25:54.086-08:002018-12-18T12:25:54.086-08:00"My source is the fist link, which is specula..."My source is the fist link, which is speculative in nature. ... The figures I've listed, are the surface area of that "kill radius" as if it was a circle."<br /><br />Lots of problems, here!<br /><br />The article is highly (totally) speculative and not very well grounded speculation, either. Nothing wrong with that as the author makes clear that it is speculation. The caution for us to also treat the information as highly speculative.<br /><br />Many of the article's sources are Chinese and, because of that, highly suspect. They may be more propaganda than scientific.<br /><br />Figure 2. in the link you provided makes clear, I think, that the kill "radius" is not a radius in the literal sense (half the diameter). The figure shows the target at the center of a "radius" of 40 km with 20 km on either side of the target point. That would make the true radius 20 km. Further, 40 km was the high end cited with 20 km being the low. For 20 km (true radius = 10 km = 6.2 miles), the detection circle is around 300 sq.km (115 sq.miles).<br /><br />The article also notes the difficulties associated with getting a radar to function upon re-entry due to the extreme heat and a phenomenon referred to as 'plasma shield'.<br /><br />The mid-course guidance comments in the article were 100% speculative and barely even theoretical and, again, were acknowledged as such.<br /><br />And so on.<br /><br />In short, I see nothing that suggests that the Chinese have an actual functional anti-ship ballistic missile or that such a weapon is even technically possible at this point.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59100335639654752882018-12-18T11:55:02.630-08:002018-12-18T11:55:02.630-08:00The kill radius is that terminal guidance phase. M...The kill radius is that terminal guidance phase. My source is the fist link, which is speculative in nature. Its circa 2009 I believe. The figures I've listed, are the surface area of that "kill radius" as if it was a circle. Imagine a circle with a "Kill" radius of 11 miles. The diameter would be 22 miles. That nets you with a total surface area of 380 miles squared. I've low balled those figures I've been stating to cover the lowest that's been theorized. IF, and I highly doubt this IF, you use the upper limited of a 40km(24 mile) kill radius, that nets you a surface area of 1809 miles squared, in which the warhead can track targets during the terminal guidance phase. Again, my apologies for the confusion. My original wording made sense in my head...<br /><br /><br />Purple Caliconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73863147860709700412018-12-18T05:31:52.050-08:002018-12-18T05:31:52.050-08:00"I'll provide the link at the bottom afte..."I'll provide the link at the bottom after I clear up the 250-500 miles statement."<br /><br />You didn't clear anything up for me! What is a 'kill radius' and where do your figures come from?<br /><br />Ballistic missiles don't follow a path search path. They follow a ballistic exo-atmospheric trajectory (hence the name), re-enter, and then perform terminal guidance. The old Pershing supposedly performed a pull up maneuver after re-entry and then glided 30 miles just prior to its terminal dive, if that's what you're referring to. However, I've seen nothing that attributes such a behavior to the Chinese ballistic missiles.<br /><br />The DF-21 is rumored to have all sorts of near-magical capabilities and none of it is confirmed or even semi-authoritative speculation.<br /><br />Let's all stick to facts or label speculations as what they are!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89843220147189742932018-12-18T02:04:17.625-08:002018-12-18T02:04:17.625-08:00I think to an extent part of the challenge comes f...I think to an extent part of the challenge comes from how modern electronics are smaller and more capable than their WW2 counterparts, but more susceptible to shock because of their construction. The mechanical gunnery computer on an Iowa would probably endure you hitting it with a sledgehammer. Drop a CIC computer for an Aegis DDG from desktop height and it's probably broken.<br /><br />It doesn't really seem like reasearch into new shock damnpening technologies/methods is being done, apart from maybe mounting equipment to shock absorbers.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25383989782843631322018-12-18T00:29:55.223-08:002018-12-18T00:29:55.223-08:00"By the way, can you provide the links to the..."By the way, can you provide the links to the "other defense speculation" you seen?"<br /><br />Unfortunately, no. It was a local defense magazine that I read at a newstand a year ago, which I didn't buy for archival purposes. The author's speculation was that DF-21 would have a ~40 km2 search cone, similar to Pershing II, based on the missile size. I guess it depends on the wordings used: my understanding is that the seeker cone can search an area of 40 square km, but your understanding seems to be that it can search a radius of 40km, which means 5,026 square kilometers, which seems a bit much. *shrug*<br /><br />Fucking words, what do they mean, argh! :V<br /><br />Interesting reading anyhow, your links are.WIld Goosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911145032644199127noreply@blogger.com