tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post8877060536688566124..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Armor For DummiesComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23768947376821426162021-11-04T12:49:00.626-07:002021-11-04T12:49:00.626-07:00Hi, I'm interested in the battleship armor tes...Hi, I'm interested in the battleship armor tests, but I'm having a difficult time locating any information about it. I'd really appreciate it if you could provide a link.Bill Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-34380941695500884682021-10-23T14:34:43.473-07:002021-10-23T14:34:43.473-07:00A F**king men! Why not armor? Why give up? Why ...A F**king men! Why not armor? Why give up? Why does the military make us wear helmets? I bet if you give politicians and admirals the choice between riding on an armored ship vs an unarmored ship they would choose the armored, let alone go to war in one. This is one of the products of outsourcing warfighting to the low and middle class, nobody gives a s**t what happens to the sailors! The Iowa class battleships could do 30+ knots with 12.5 inches of armor, 45,000 tons displacement and 16 inch guns. And folks are saying that a Zumwalt class at one third the displacement can only afford Kevlar armor in limited places? There were WWII cruisers that weighed less than the Zumwalt class, that probably carried enough armor to outfit a modern Abrams tank company or more and could hold its own with the Zumwalt in a race. And modern tanks have figured out how to defeat shaped charges, it will be child's play to put layers on a much larger ship. And if female LTjg's are going to continue to play bumper cars with DDG-51s and container ships it would also be nice to give the DDG-51s some steel bumpers, along with their armor. Because there are always completely unanticipated situations where the armor comes in handy, just as I am sure that there are veteran construction workers who can tell you about unusual accidents where someone was saved by a hardhat. I am glancing at the last comment here, and I doubt that he has been to sea. He is right that engineering is a compromise. No one wants to go back to 12.5 inches of Iowa armor. But I don't like to see the HMS Sheffield taken out by one Exocet. I don't like to see the USS Fitzgerald and McCain get turned into pretzels by the sea going equivalent of a fender bender. I don't like to wonder if an Iranian machine gun would turn one of our ships into Swiss cheese. I'd like to start with 10% more armor on our new ships, not new enough to delay things so it would be a couple ships deep. So, 10% thicker steel, 10% thicker beams, beams placed 10% closer together, 10% more Kevlar, 10% more crew quarters away from the sides of the ships, 10% more spacing around the sides (bulkheads? sorry, I was Army, not Navy)(maybe use for closets for all those mops/swabs ;) ). And hopefully keep it all around to 10% more displacement. Of course, we should stop using the military a testbed for social experiments as we have been doing since the 1970s. We should fire Admirals and Generals like we haven't done for half a century nor should we let them take cushy well-paying jobs with defense contractors immediately after leaving the military. I just don't like to look at the side of a DDG-51 and feel like I could push it in and out like a tin can!1683Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08042854012359905003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59811722459721377442021-05-31T09:24:26.935-07:002021-05-31T09:24:26.935-07:00Warship design is a compromise. Every extra ton o...Warship design is a compromise. Every extra ton of steel added to only slightly improve the armor protection costs a ton of fuel (range), ammunitions (missiles, gun ammo), weapons, or electronics. It's a compromise between offensive capability and limited protection. With modern weapons systems, an extra half inch of steel will not help very much but will reduce your ability to maneuver and fight. Those of us that have trained to take these ships into battle want the weapons and fuel needed to win the battle. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46363064820402245872020-10-26T18:57:29.542-07:002020-10-26T18:57:29.542-07:00Although also not structural protection, ceramic a...Although also not structural protection, ceramic armor can serve as explosive damage mitigation as well as resisting penetration. I'm curious about what you feel about ceramic armor. For example, some has been created which serves as both armor and as a stealth coating.<br /><br />"Measures tested to make the CAV-ATD less visible to ground radar and thermal imaging systems were improved seals over the paneling to prevent radar signals from entering and a coating with radar absorbing material."<br /><br />https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/composite-armored-vehicle-advanced-technology-demonstrator-cav-atd/Prometheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353142795486894045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11252567052513995802020-07-07T05:38:30.906-07:002020-07-07T05:38:30.906-07:00" armor upgrades … Kevlar"
Kevlar is ni..." armor upgrades … Kevlar"<br /><br />Kevlar is nice but it isn't armor in the sense that we're discussing it, here. It's just splinter protection - again, that's nice but does little or nothing for structural protection or explosive damage mitigation.<br /><br />I'm unaware of any contingency plans for add-on armor. Can you provide a link or reference? Also, most ships have largely used up any weight margins they had when they were built so contingency armor add-ons are probably void.<br /><br />"Could say more"<br /><br />Please do! And be sure to offer some references.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10793097545662255862020-07-06T19:40:22.083-07:002020-07-06T19:40:22.083-07:00There has been an ongoing effort to plan armor upg...There has been an ongoing effort to plan armor upgrades on an as needed basis for at least the past 35 years. The extensively added kevlar aboard the Nimitz and improved Nimitz class of Aircraft Carriers, post construction, were needed in the event of they were ever fired on in a war zone. <br /><br />Other modern classes of warships have contingency armor plans for post construction needs. This has been limited to the surplus buoyancy of individual vessels plus their intended purposes and likely targets. Mostly splinter armor around CIC and other critical compartments, such as reactors onboard air craft carriers plus aviation fuel and ordnance have been planned for. Other vessels have less widespread and effective armor contingency plans at present. This is mostly due to the changes in naval warfare to longer distance targets and air superiority as the preferred form of defense. Could say more. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05431606953990673718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39316179208521961442019-12-15T12:21:41.402-08:002019-12-15T12:21:41.402-08:00"sacrifices had to be made to pull the wool o..."sacrifices had to be made to pull the wool over the eyes of snooping congress-critters."<br /><br />Do you have any documentation, whatsoever, for your statements? I've never seen anything along those lines.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-91041575424154570902019-12-15T11:21:51.398-08:002019-12-15T11:21:51.398-08:00Steel is cheap, yes, but, given the design paramet...Steel is cheap, yes, but, given the design parameters of the admiralty vs what congress allowed, the Arleigh Burke class was hosed from the get go. Congress said frigates, the admiralty wanted light cruisers. <br /><br />The compromise was a light cruiser design relabeled as a frigate that was using about the metal of a large frigate, more gadgets than a bond novel, and sacrifices had to be made to pull the wool over the eyes of snooping congress-critters. For the role in warfare it's had, it's adequate to its mission. <br />Also, remember, the admiralty always plans from the war just ended... but never really knows what the next war will be like. That the admiralty of the USN hasn't totally mispredicted is a credit to the office the CNET for preparing our officers for many predicted futures, all along the way. (At least, those officers willing to learn it. I'm certain most will have encountered the odd officer who lives in perpetual willful ignorance.)<br />So, Armor useful? Yes. <br />Armor essential to the mission? No, merely useful. (see the USS Cole Incident, 12 Oct 2000 and the USS Stark incident, 17 May 1987.) <br />Armor on the Arleigh Burke Class? the relative lack is a function of politics, combined with budgetary and congressional oversight sleight of hand by the design bureau, the admiralty, and a few sympathetic congress-persons. aramishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02308648707448646351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60378403519950556532019-07-06T15:53:54.131-07:002019-07-06T15:53:54.131-07:00Outstanding! Which ship?Outstanding! Which ship?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74572981340066967252019-07-06T15:35:38.498-07:002019-07-06T15:35:38.498-07:00As a former gunners mate on a fletcher class destr...As a former gunners mate on a fletcher class destroyer. I was told the reason for a 1/2 inch On the water line was to make the ship fast. The other reason was because the destroyer was expendable.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00521984310477550904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73246622594567837642017-07-03T23:13:30.654-07:002017-07-03T23:13:30.654-07:00sabotage in high places??sabotage in high places??Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06924481743876943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62480216598365693822017-06-04T20:04:33.554-07:002017-06-04T20:04:33.554-07:00I like it. That would make for a proper modern es...I like it. That would make for a proper modern escort for carriers and the like.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84082542544889083052017-06-04T20:03:05.886-07:002017-06-04T20:03:05.886-07:00I agree. The mystery to me is why we moved away f...I agree. The mystery to me is why we moved away from armor given the lessons of WWII.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-58102876168601144292017-06-04T19:19:05.825-07:002017-06-04T19:19:05.825-07:00As stated, armor is very useful for stopping splin...As stated, armor is very useful for stopping splinters from hits tearing up adjacent compartments. WW2 experience with armor was to use 60lb (1.5") armor as upper deck armor to fuse armor piercing bombs and shells. It also mounted on the IOWA hulls because the main armor belt was inside the ship. It would be a great start to make sure that all transverse bulkheads be 60lb armor to contain damage to a single compartment. An armor deck above the waterline, perhaps 2" as in cruisers, thick, would help hold a ship together in the advent of a torpedo breaking the keel. It wont always work, but why not give our ships the extra chance? 4" of hull armor, 8' above and below the waterline, certainly protects against the idiots with motor boats. Most importantly, armor is cheap other than adding extra weight. The ships are too important to NOT have armor. Wayne SmithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68611467016329909152017-03-14T20:35:02.965-07:002017-03-14T20:35:02.965-07:00just imagine a modern BB design with exceptional A...just imagine a modern BB design with exceptional AAW capabilities :D 400mm sloped belt armour and a dozen CIWS Phalanx and SeaRAM for defence (Sooo many VLS cells on a 260m long ship hehehe) :D *Drools*jnadrethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09106233241899591427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6319508508074338862016-12-03T15:10:18.134-08:002016-12-03T15:10:18.134-08:00Don't forget that statistically the most effec... Don't forget that statistically the most effective anti ship weapon in WW2 was the 50 cal.<br /><br /> The vast majority of naval ships had little or no armour ( destroyers etc) and fighters could just plug em full of holes till they sank.<br /><br /> Another point is that armoured ships weren't armoured all over. Vital machinery and magazines would be within the armoured citadel whereas much of the rest of the ship would merely be structural steel.<br /><br /> Some modern advances such as IEP, usually a single open plan command and control room plus bridge and machinery and weapons automation could allow a modern day citadel to be relatively small. For instance sealing the engines into the hull below the waterline is traditional, but not necessary with IEP. You could have the diesels in ISOs within a citadel which merely channel electric power to the motors, and also allow easy access and very rapid engine changes or maintenance. Also worth noting that a marine diesel, provided it is redundant, represents quite a chunk of armour in and of itself.<br /><br /> Sadly the 'ships have to be light' meme with its ignorance of hydrodynamics and inability to distinguish between topweight and bottom weight which actually provides stability seems to have taken hold in this internet age. Also the difference between armour piercing, kinetic energy and explosive force. Kamikazes represented far higher forces than most of the dreaded anti ship missiles, never mind large calibre AP.<br /><br /> I rather suspect that if someone magicked up a WW2 light cruiser and gave it to the USMC they'd stop wittering on about 100nm amphibious raids, ergms and ( most) a2ad threats and get on with the job of closing to gun range and delivering overwhelming firepower.Chaffershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13688894429058545822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-16065554895564316502016-08-03T14:57:03.721-07:002016-08-03T14:57:03.721-07:00Glad to help!Glad to help!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30136429546921342342016-08-03T14:45:43.486-07:002016-08-03T14:45:43.486-07:00Regards the battle of the Bismark Sea, this data i...Regards the battle of the Bismark Sea, this data is useful to me.<br />As the U.S.A.A.F. skip bombers used 4 to 8 .50 Brownings per plane, they, with the 20mm cannon of the RAAF Beaufighters, rattled the AA fire of the escorting destroyers of the IJN, and allowed 75% of the troop convoy to be sunk with skip bombing. That method requires getting 'up close and personal' with the target, so AA suppression is vital. This article help me see a bit more of that was involved that day in WW2. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60507296028369759452015-12-04T08:11:45.864-08:002015-12-04T08:11:45.864-08:00I'm not quite sure what your point is? Try ag...I'm not quite sure what your point is? Try again?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47489260259818882272015-12-02T16:31:30.049-08:002015-12-02T16:31:30.049-08:00writing a novel ( attempting anyways) I came acros...writing a novel ( attempting anyways) I came across this issue. I have solved it...using literary lic, but wanting to remain real at the same time. <br /><br />people seem to fail to grasp the complexities now posed in warfare and that the nice open lets use ESSM's, SM3's or SM6's is simple NOT always an option.<br /><br />how does a Burke class DDG engage multi high speed targets that POP UP among other vessels in a littoral environment?<br /><br />how does a burke Class DDG swap rounds with land based arty or RPG's or ATGM's when its close to the shore in a shore bombardment / support role.<br /><br />the answer is they cannot effectively do it, they have no secondary support armament, lack sufficient guns for sustained support and 7.62mm rounds will most likely penetrate the ship. who wants a ship that can be disabled by squad level weapons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37696383189458809622014-07-15T14:11:34.192-07:002014-07-15T14:11:34.192-07:00So you'd rather lose the ship and crew rather ...So you'd rather lose the ship and crew rather than just the sensors & coms? While the Admirals may not see much difference between a kill & a mission kill, I imagine the crews care.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87498380095022045882013-05-14T16:33:35.952-07:002013-05-14T16:33:35.952-07:00Anon, are you interested in a discussion or just l...Anon, are you interested in a discussion or just looking to unload on me? I suspect the latter. If you'd like to have a discussion, let me know and we can do so in a polite fashion. Otherwise, you're welcome to your opinions and you might be happier finding and reading a blog that's more in agreement with your ideas.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-48820169642806363672013-05-14T15:28:10.760-07:002013-05-14T15:28:10.760-07:00A bit late, but a bit smart...
A DDG-51's mai...A bit late, but a bit smart...<br /><br />A DDG-51's main weapons aren't the Harpoons, or 5 incher, but the Mk41 VLS. You've got enough missile types in there that, if every one of those types was a BLT, you would have a bacon sandwich feast. <br /><br />Technology has obviated armor. Necessarily, given how many ships that have relied on armor have gone down under high explosive delivered by airplanes. Remember the Ostfriesland?<br /><br />Now, in a normal Block 1 Burke, you've got 90 cells. Load them all with ESSM's, that's 360 missiles. Read that sentence again, I suggest. Three Hundred and Sixty Missiles, capable of turning Migs and boghammers into burning wrecks. <br /><br />Now, you think we'll be going up against China. So far, we've built 62 Arleigh Burkes, DDG-51 to DDG-112, all with varying capabilities divided up in two flights of destroyers. They have two-TWO- Sovremenny's with old Sunburn missiles, I believe. We still have around a dozen Ticos, and enough carriers to turn their nation into not a parking lot, but maybe a shopping mall that's seen a zombie apocalypse. <br /><br />Can our ships take the same amount of damage as a WW2 DD? The USS Callaghan went down after a single kamikaze. Sure, a kamikaze may not be the same as a sea skimming, supersonic guided missile, but our ability to destroy the latter and former has increased. Against a pair of modern DDG's with Cooperative Engagement Capability, SM-3's, and even SM-6's, what chance does a DF-21 have in an ECM'ed environment? <br /><br />And should a modern warship be able to take damage and keep fighting? What kind of threats are we facing? A ASBM, like the DF-21? A Granit missile from a Sovremenny? A torpedo from a Kilo diesel sub? An Iranian Boghammer? While it may take months to repair damage, it took a long time to repair damage to warships in World War Two also. Only a few notable exceptions occurred in that war, and any war that takes place today is going to be a lot shorter. <br /><br />And if you are going to shoot me with a .50-cal, I want a gun of my own. A XM25. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4391713920976901802013-04-21T09:17:19.078-07:002013-04-21T09:17:19.078-07:00Commander: What mischief can I commit to re-open t...Commander: What mischief can I commit to re-open the Iowa class debate. Yes, they're museum ship but they are still afloat and armored like nothing else at sea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32708663522701290532013-04-20T05:26:00.401-07:002013-04-20T05:26:00.401-07:00Glof,
I)The post doesn't claim that armor st...Glof,<br /><br /><br />I)The post doesn't claim that armor stops everything but does explain the immense loss of kinetic energy upon penetration and the resulting mitigation in damage.<br /><br />II)I'm aware that Burkes have anti-shrapnel Kevlar armor around key areas. That's good, as far as it goes. What they don't have is any armor dedicated to keeping the ship itself afloat: no waterline armor, no sub-waterline armor for torpedo or mine protection, no deck or superstructure armor to prevent or mitigate general damage beyond the Kevlar protections. <br /><br />III)I'm not suggesting that armor must only take the form of thick plates of steel. Void spaces, layered armor, composites, and even reactive armor could all be used along with whatever else makes sense. If there's an arrangement that makes more sense for torpedo protection, for instance, that's fine.<br /><br />IV)The Fletchers were built with 1/2-3/4" steel plate as their hull skin. I'm generically referring to that as armor. In addition, they had areas with additional armor. When I discuss armor, I'm partly referring to simply the thickness and hardness of the skin of the ship. I don't have my numbers in front of me but WWII ships were built with HY100 or so steel whereas we now build with something like HY35 or so. Even without increasing thickness, we could build with much stronger steel.<br /><br />V)I'm not aware that RHA is used anymore in shipbuilding. Whether it should be is a question I can't answer. Whatever the cost, the cost of a sunk ship is much greater. Some things are worth their cost and armor is one of them.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com