tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post6224981858456111204..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Firepower and SurvivabilityComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-67323924959852417302016-08-06T08:27:45.974-07:002016-08-06T08:27:45.974-07:00The Aegis arrays apparently require very precise a...The Aegis arrays apparently require very precise alignment that is easily and, potentially, permanently altered.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46230466816282967262016-08-05T20:30:47.116-07:002016-08-05T20:30:47.116-07:00CNO, you might like to see this video playlist con...CNO, you might like to see this video playlist concerning what was once the pinnacle of naval firepower and survivability, all at a sustained 33 knots. I don't know if it'll make it through the spam filter so I'm putting it in a separate comment. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZUp4w8LY7whKukivtQ4MiFJ4BqOoeCU-Mazryonhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15895401478166870878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8235942948842170572016-08-05T20:23:12.904-07:002016-08-05T20:23:12.904-07:00Ray D.,
Do you have a website link or web video ...Ray D., <br /><br />Do you have a website link or web video showing the USS Wisconsin crew reunion and their enthusiastic response to being called up again to serve on the old battlewagon? Even if you don't, it sounds like they need to form a lobby group. <br /><br />As for "bombing a sandbox," the <i>Iowa</i>-class battleships could do that most places with the exception of land-locked nations like Afghanistan. But there really is no substitute for a battleship when it comes to "gunboat diplomacy." Having your nation hit by nukes is bad enough, but sustained battleship bombardment can be kept up all week, is much more demoralizing, and has none of that pesky fallout. <br /><br />Interesting that you say that Scramjet shells (has anyone ever tested those in live-fire condition?) aren't useful at maximum range, because of the time it takes to travel. The current drive towards longer and longer missile ranges doesn't appear to take the longer travel times into account, unlike battleship shells which have much shorter flight times. Mazryonhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15895401478166870878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-49081097906162864522016-08-05T19:26:12.347-07:002016-08-05T19:26:12.347-07:00That still doesn't make any sense. Plenty of f...That still doesn't make any sense. Plenty of fighter jets use AESAs, even ones that have to make regular carrier landings. That must involve plenty of shock on a regular basis. Mazryonhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15895401478166870878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68971775125144578062016-08-05T18:58:03.421-07:002016-08-05T18:58:03.421-07:00CNO, do you think that one of the lessons of the F...CNO, do you think that one of the lessons of the Falklands might be "bayonet charges can still work"? There was a successful British one during the Battle of Mount Tumbledown, and the British pulled off another successful one later during the "Battle of Danny Boy" in the War on Terror.Mazryonhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15895401478166870878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13352495406618700052016-08-05T18:20:54.250-07:002016-08-05T18:20:54.250-07:00I think this blog post should have included the fo...I think this blog post should have included the following quote from Soviet Admiral Sergey Gorshkov (1910 - 1988). He praised the Firepower and Survivability of the <i>Iowa</i>-class battleships (after receiving their 1980s refit) with the following: <br /><br /><i>"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent ships are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."</i><br /><br />They sure don't make 'em like they used to. Mazryonhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15895401478166870878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37272939674951758492016-08-04T17:50:32.248-07:002016-08-04T17:50:32.248-07:00You're quite right about the Falklands. It ha...You're quite right about the Falklands. It has so many lessons to offer and yet we persist in believing that we know better and that our technology will overcome the realities of combat.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24627744367168983492016-08-04T17:06:57.577-07:002016-08-04T17:06:57.577-07:00No worries, I understand, and you did address DC f...No worries, I understand, and you did address DC from a personnel standpoint. Just thought a comment on the subject was a worthwhile addition to the thread. And I do find the Falklands experience to be telling.CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5918900644132135732016-08-04T05:22:02.871-07:002016-08-04T05:22:02.871-07:00I didn't mention compartmentation, redundancy,...I didn't mention compartmentation, redundancy, separation, simplification, or a hundred other factors that make up survivability. It's a blog post and I've got several paragraphs of space to work with. I've got to pick and choose which specific items to discuss. I ask for your understanding!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40951454736926437342016-08-03T18:12:32.461-07:002016-08-03T18:12:32.461-07:00CNO, one thing you didn't mention in the origi...CNO, one thing you didn't mention in the original post is internal compartmentation and damage control standards (other than the spot-on comments about having sufficient manpower to perform effective damage control). I would presume that you don't disagree with the need, but that your primary focus was elsewhere. <br /><br />The RN experience in the Falklands is instructive. They had a mix os ships built to historic naval DC standards, and other ships built to lesser standards. Both groups took direct hits. The ones built to historic naval standards stayed afloat. The others didn't.CDR Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29035801456124261252016-08-03T08:24:52.174-07:002016-08-03T08:24:52.174-07:00I'm not sure exactly what you're asking bu...I'm not sure exactly what you're asking but I'll try an answer and you let me know if I've misunderstood your question.<br /><br />I favor more focused warship designs rather than the misguided jack-of-all-trades designs we do now. Thus, for a dedicated carrier AAW escort, which is what the Ticos are, there is no need for helos, hangars, or UAVs (why would you need UAVs when there is a carrier air wing nearby?). UAVs would be completely appropriate and useful for low end vessels like destroyers which don't currently have. This would take care of the low end threats.<br /><br />You can have the greatest sniper rifle ever made but if you don't practice with it, it won't make you a sniper. You can have the best ASW equipment in the fleet but if you rarely practice with it you won't be any good at it. Ticos don't practice ASW enough to be good at it. Further, would you really want to risk the few high end Aegis AAW command vessels we have playing tag with a sub? That's what we need destroyers (which, as I mentioned, we don't have) for.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39208638520077743452016-08-03T06:59:47.614-07:002016-08-03T06:59:47.614-07:00Ironically, for some period of time, you could arg...Ironically, for some period of time, you could argue that the CGs had the best ASW suite in the fleet with its tail, helo, and ASW control systems.<br /><br />Would you argue for the utility of deck space and/or work space to allow the launch and retrieval of small UAVs? The utility may be questionable in the high end threat/mission (ie, CVN defense against high end air threats) but could be invaluable in the low to medium end threat, particularly if the helo and helo facilities are removed.<br />InterestedPartynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81866322910412350572016-08-01T17:23:15.243-07:002016-08-01T17:23:15.243-07:00While what CNO said is true, we do not have Public...While what CNO said is true, we do not have Public Testing on the DF-21 itself, we do have some other things to rely on.<br />The fact is, the DF-21 is by all indications a nearly direct ripoff of the US Pershing II missile system, which does have public documentation.<br />The physical limitations of the DF-21 shine through in the propaganda photographs, from them we know quite a few characteristics of the present DF-21D missile.<br />At present, the DF-21 is a single inert warhead missile. It does not explode, it just punches a hole in something.<br />It also DOES NOT carry MIRVs, merely a single inert penetrator.<br />There have been TALKS about the possibilities of China upgrading the system to use MIRV, which the US Navy basically said would be an instant kill to a Carrier, but the problem is that the DF-21 is presently not capable of this. It would take an almost entirely new missile.<br />In addition, the Reentry Vehicle for the DF-21 is not a pure ballistic drop vehicle. Like the Pershing II, the DF-21's RV makes atmospheric reentry, throws on the breaks and performs a high-g pull up, glides a bit while trying to find its target, then tries to dive on it or whatever.<br />That is what it is built for, otherwise its features are pointless.<br />The issues are simple, it loses a lot of its supposed killer speed while maneuvering and gliding, and its impacts are generally of moderate to semi-high obliquity (this was to avoid terminal kill systems, IIRC) - the type that late-era Deck Armor is designed to deflect.<br />For the Pershing II, this was not a problem, it was carrying a nuclear warhead; and, indeed, for the Nuclear DF-21 this is also true. But a Kinetic Kill Vehicle in that pattern has a very high chance of just bouncing off the deck.<br />Verses a Carrier, this is still going to dent the flight deck and possibly cause a lot of fires if it manages to hit exposed fuel lines/trucks, which is a mission kill to a Carrier, but to a Battleship this is Tuesday.<br /><br />Also, the Wiki has this to say on the subject (and I checked the source):<br />"Though much is made of the DF-21D's damage infliction ability based solely on velocity and kinetic energy, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has calculated that the energy of an inert 500 kg (1,100 lb) RV impacting at Mach 6 had similar energy to the combined kinetic and explosive power of the American subsonic Harpoon anti-ship missile, which is one-quarter the energy of the Russian supersonic 12,800 lb (5,800 kg) Kh-22 missile traveling at Mach 4 with a 2,200 lb (1,000 kg) warhead."<br /><br />In addition, some U.S. analysts believe that the DF-21D actually doesn't fly any faster than Mach 5 once past boost phase, which makes its terminal stage only BARELY faster than a jet fighter...<br /><br />We have tested the effects of the Harpoon verses the Belt and Deck armor schemes of the Iowa, and these are public. Against both, it was a no-sell.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70594033819768397782016-08-01T11:39:36.309-07:002016-08-01T11:39:36.309-07:00True. Though I think we can come up with reasonabl...True. Though I think we can come up with reasonable expectations given what we know. <br /><br />We don't really know till we test. <br /><br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53696438348994681732016-08-01T09:48:50.454-07:002016-08-01T09:48:50.454-07:00Let's be honest, none of us has any real idea ...Let's be honest, none of us has any real idea about missile effectiveness against armor. I'm aware of almost no public domain testing in this area. So, we're all just speculating but, hey, that's the fun of it, right?!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76463548508491411672016-08-01T09:36:35.674-07:002016-08-01T09:36:35.674-07:00"Now for laughs, the Chinese 'Carrier-Kil..."Now for laughs, the Chinese 'Carrier-Killer' DF-21 is only as powerful a penetrator as the Harpoon"<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by that? The MIRV's on the DF-21 are all traveling at very high Mach. It seems the kinetic energy alone would allow them to penetrate a great deal. And then you add to the fact that they are going to hit more vertically. <br /><br />The bomb, splinter, and armor deck of the Iowa's was intended to arm HE and arm and decap AP shells travelling at much slower speeds so they'd explode before the main bomb deck. So it seems a vertically attacking high speed penetrator could defeat that armor? <br /><br />I think that one of the main solutions to the DF-21 is going to be EA of some sort. <br /><br />If it does hit it can cause a hell of alot of damage. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-814936329906756502016-08-01T07:46:04.863-07:002016-08-01T07:46:04.863-07:00There are so many possible armor innovations that ...There are so many possible armor innovations that could be adapted to ships and the Navy seems interested in none of them. Very sad.<br /><br />Good comment.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62247352297014892632016-07-31T21:00:13.990-07:002016-07-31T21:00:13.990-07:00Here is an idea for all those stuck in ww2 era arm...Here is an idea for all those stuck in ww2 era armour thinking but looking for lighter and better protection schemes<br /><br />Look up and consider composite metal foam for armour plating on ships. Anyone think this might work and save weightHowdypartnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14995152060704851499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47652666139803539692016-07-31T16:35:19.259-07:002016-07-31T16:35:19.259-07:00The US Navy tested a Harpoon (which is more powerf...The US Navy tested a Harpoon (which is more powerful than an Anti-Ship Tomahawk) against a spare 12.1-inch Armor Slat for the Iowa-class Armored Belt.<br />Literally only scratched the paint (and this was without the several layers of deflection metal between the outside of the ship and the armor belt).<br /><br />They also tested it against a replica of the deck armor scheme - at the programmed attack angles it failed to get past the 1.5 inch STS weather deck (virtually unarmored by Battleship standards), let alone the 6-7 inch Bomb Deck (the Armored Deck).<br /><br />Now for laughs, the Chinese 'Carrier-Killer' DF-21 is only as powerful a penetrator as the Harpoon, it just does more damage on the other side.<br />This leaves the P-700 Granit (Shipwreck) and derivatives as the only Anti-Ship missiles that could reliably knock out an Iowa, and even the Russians seem to think not.<br /><br />- Ray D.Ray D.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85404081001873669572016-07-31T07:03:17.066-07:002016-07-31T07:03:17.066-07:00Let's also be cautious about making the genera...Let's also be cautious about making the general assumption that a greater weight of explosive means a greater degree of damage. A WWII 16" Armor Piercing round had only 40 lbs or so of explosive but was designed to penetrate many inches of armor. By contrast, a Harpoon is listed as having a nearly 500 lb warhead (not sure how much of that is explosive weight) but it cannot penetrate armor to anywhere near the degree that an AP shell can. So, weight of explosive is not the measure of anti-ship effectiveness. <br /><br />Many years ago, the Navy tested a Harpoon (might have been a Tomahawk - I can't remember) against battleship armor (don't recall the thickness) and found that it did nothing. So, weight of warhead (or weight of explosive) is not the measure of anti-ship effectiveness. It's how the explosive is delivered.<br /><br />That's as far as my knowledge can take me. I know nothing of how modern anti-ship missile warheads are designed or what they're designed to be effective against.<br /><br />As far as mitigating anti-ship missile effects the general statement that any armor is better than no armor is, and always will be, true.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71066626131076769682016-07-31T06:53:23.192-07:002016-07-31T06:53:23.192-07:00"According to Wiki, the Soviets used a 1000kg..."According to Wiki, the Soviets used a 1000kg shaped charge warhead ... resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter, and was 12 m (40 ft) deep."<br /><br />Be careful not to extrapolate too far. That sentence/paragraph in Wiki did not state what material that test was conducted against. It could have been earth, concrete, aluminum plate, steel, or anything else. As I read it, it also slightly hinted that a shaped charge was not the normal warhead - unsure about that - but it clearly did not state that that was the normal warhead. It almost sounded like a one-off experiment. <br /><br />Extrapolating that sentence to a general statement of effectiveness against all ships is shaky logic, at best. Throw in the Soviet/Russian's tendency to fabricate or overstate things and the entire thing has to be seriously questioned.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11707370936665125702016-07-31T05:37:36.485-07:002016-07-31T05:37:36.485-07:00Read this previous post, Armor for DummiesRead this previous post, <a href="http://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/04/armor-for-dummies.html" rel="nofollow">Armor for Dummies</a>ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16461576345421088092016-07-31T02:07:48.413-07:002016-07-31T02:07:48.413-07:00I think normal armour really had its day.
An iowa...I think normal armour really had its day.<br /><br />An iowa's 16 inch shells had about 25kg of HE.<br /><br />A Russian Granit ASM has in the region of 750kg RDX @ Mach 1.6 and better ASM are being created all the time.<br /><br />No simple physical barrier can resist this kind of physical stress.<br /><br />We have to remember that the weight of armour restricts other design features.<br /><br />Manouverability has be proven as very significant in ASM attacks when used in conjunction with passive defence.<br /><br />Against these kind of weapons surviability depends on not getting hit.<br /><br />This i would say is a good idea with any kind of weapon.<br /><br />The idea of concentrating a design on being hit. Particually to the detrement of other considerations. Is frankly... well silly.<br /><br />We didnt spend ALL THIS MONEY on anti missile ship defence for no reason.<br /><br />On the topic of offence. Yes 100%, VLS LRASM and lots of them!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12729830680739249692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85748927478181496972016-07-30T20:46:57.077-07:002016-07-30T20:46:57.077-07:00That missile, kh-22, has a dia of 3ft, and its sha...That missile, kh-22, has a dia of 3ft, and its shape charge blew a 5-meter hole. It probably meant a secondary warhead went thru the bore hole and exploded from within. And depending where that '40-ft depth' is on a carrier, from a cross-section cut out of USS Nimitz, it looks to be where the hanger deck is. A thermobaric warhead will do damage there. Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-29857681478752906392016-07-30T18:24:30.833-07:002016-07-30T18:24:30.833-07:00Problem is that hole is going be damaging somethin...Problem is that hole is going be damaging something. Just the heat alone will start fires all over that 40 feet area. Also, don't forget that there would be more then one missile.<br /><br />No battleships were lost at Jutland? Um... HMS Queen Mary, HMS Invincible, HMS Indefatigable, SMS Lutzow, and SMS Pommern all never returned to port.<br /><br />Seal Of Lionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304620391386824536noreply@blogger.com