[sci.military] reactive armor for ships

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/02/89)

From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>The antiship warheads are not shaped charge and ships generally don't have 
>enough of a hull backing to prevent collateral damage.

Soviet antiship missiles are believed to use shaped charges, actually.
(Bloody large ones, too.)  However, the lack of hull backing is indeed
a problem.

maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) (05/03/89)

From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert)

In article <6153@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>The antiship warheads are not shaped charge and ships generally don't have 
>>enough of a hull backing to prevent collateral damage.
>Soviet antiship missiles are believed to use shaped charges, actually.

Yes, but that's not the primary damage mechanism.  ~1000 lbs plus of 
Comb. B equivalent is going to bash a ship regardless of shaped charge.
The shaping will increase the depth of damage, esp. with light armour.

The point is moot.  Figuring a reactive armour charge needs about as much
depth as the warhead, we'd need about 3'.  Plus the foot or so of backing...
Better to just use solid steel. 

tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW)) (05/05/89)

From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (ATW))

>In article <6153@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The antiship warheads are not shaped charge and ships generally don't have 
>enough of a hull backing to prevent collateral damage.
>Soviet antiship missiles are believed to use shaped charges, actually.

>From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert)
>Yes, but that's not the primary damage mechanism.  ~1000 lbs plus of 
>Comb. B equivalent is going to bash a ship regardless of shaped charge.

just a side note to add to this discussion:

Shape charge warheads are becoming popular in warheads for
light-weight torpedos. Apparently, this is fueled by the fear that the
double-hull or titanium hull Soviet subs may too tough to breach with
normal warheads. Of course, I am not suggesting that the Soviets are
going to use reactive armor on their subs. Some people were suggesting
that, we ought to use small nuke warheads on torpedos (eg SKINT).
While easily defeating tough hulls, there are, of course, special
considerations when using nukes.

Ted Kim                           ARPAnet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:    ...!ucbvax!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3804C Boelter Hall                PHONE:   (213) 206-8696
Los Angeles, CA 90024             ESPnet:  tek@ouija.board