brianb%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) (04/27/89)
From: brianb%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) Since there was a large number of postings on the same subject, I have decided to answer several of them in one article. >From: marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) > While none of this comes as news to me, I've never understood >*why* they've stopped putting armor on ships. I can understand that >it probably isn't as useful as the extra speed/space on certain classes >of ships, but something like a cruiser which is designed to slug it out >with other heavily armed ships or ground weapons could certainly benefit >from it. Does anybody know when this decision was made, what prompted >it, and why, in an era where most weapons are missiles with limited >warheads, we are sticking with it? For quite a long time armor was not considered that useful, in 50's Nuclear weapons and aircraft with conventional bombs were seen as the threat and armor was not that valuable against either. Another thing to look at (here in the US at least), is that the US did not build a lot of larger ships in the 50's and 60's. They built new carriers and they built missile cruisers to support the carriers, these ships were not designed for surface war, so armor was unneccesary. We weren't building ships to ships fight surface to surface battles. It was reasoned that the rest of fleet could be brought out of mothballs if we had to fight an opponent on the surface, but the carriers had to be ready and protected. Smallers ships have never really had significant amounts of armor, and armoring ASW ships makes very little sense. With our newer construction, we are using the lessons learned from the Falklands, some of our ships have a Kevlar armor protecting the sensors and weapons directors, and the Mk143 Tomahawk missile launcher being added to many of our destroyer is itself armored. =============================================================================== }From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) }mission using aircraft which are a lot more accurate. There never was a desire }or need to blast any major Arg naval concentrations. Assuming the Args had a }ship like the Iowa class making it to the British fleet would be the hazardous }part. While Exocets are sea skimmers missiles like the Harpoon have a }terminal dive phase and I think so does the Sea Eagle.In this phase the }missile climbs and then dives terminally hitting the UPPER unarmoured }deck/superstructure. knocking out command facilities and possibly driving }through the thin upper armor into the innards of the ship. Now I'm not }familiar with the deck armor of the Iowas but that is the threat. The argentine Exocets were not terminal pop-up, I believe only the English and the French use the advanced Exocet with terminal pop-up. Also terminal phase of the missile is more to outwit the point defense systems of the ship than to increase the damage a missile does. The exocet was designed to hit the belt of ship and sink it, not burrow into it and cripple it. You are going to do much less structural damage with a hit through the deck, and the exocet does not have the explosive punch to kill a ship that way. As for the deck armor of the Iowa class, it has a triple deck, and each layer has armor on it. An exocet would do very little damage here. The mast are also hardened stell with some measure of armoring, so the sensors are slightly(not a lot) more protected than on modern ships. }Now for those who think that great }air defense missiles are the answere let me point out the Arg success in }BOMBING Royal Navy ships which are believed to have on par if not better }air defense than a-thing in USN except for the Tico class. In the USN the }big ships including the upgraded Iowas have less missile defense than their }smaller dedicated air defense platforms. The air defense of the Royal navy ships does not compare well to US ships, lets take a look at some of the air defenses on RN ships in the Falklands. County Class(include Glamorgan) Sea Slug Sea Cat 20mm guns 114mm guns Type 42 Batch 1 (includes Sheffield) Sea Dart 2Omm guns 30mm guns Amazon Class Sea Cat 20mm guns 114mm guns These are classes of ships which had units sunk or damaged during the Falklands war. One of the most important things is that none of these systems were designed for use against seaskimmers. The only British missile system at the time that was effective against exocet missiles was the Sea Wolf(that has changed now). The point defense systems were also not designed to face seaskimmers. In addtion the British frequently kept their sensors off. Another thing to note, the largest British warship involved in the fighting was about 6100 Tons, about the size of one of our destroyers. Many of our cruisers now have SM2 class missile, which is capable against seaskimmers and while the phalanx may not be perfect, at least it was designed to shoot at very low targets. As for the Iowa not having heavy air defenses, it is not intended to travel alone any more, it is accompanied by an air defense ship and ASW ship. It is no longer meant to be a standalone ship, it is a leader of a Surface action group. }The Arg AF penetrated almost total Brit air superiority and snuck under }radar with planes flying 5ftabove waves to bomb RN ships at such low altitudes }that sometimes the bomb didn't fall long enough to arm! Iowa maybe a great }ship for showing the flag but it is not invincible by a long margin. No ship is invincable, it is and excellent addition to a task force and adds the dimensions of long range missiles, and surface guns to the abilities of the other ships. } Ameer Z. Sulaiman. ============================================================================== }From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) >Tim McDaniel writes: >- Missiles seem to be today's general weapon-of-choice, unlike the >shells, torpedos, and mines of previous years. However, conventional >missiles tend to have low explosive yields, so less armor should be >necessary. I've heard that "six hits from any of today's missiles in >the same place still won't pierce battleship armor". This is unlikely >(armor isn't uniformly protective) but indicative. Western missiles have a low yield, the Soviets have quite a few conventional missile systems that pack quite a punch and would do significant damage to a BB. (Then again it would disintegrate most of our crusiers) }I don't know what speed modern cruisers can make, but in WWII, virtually }every nation had a 32-33 knot heavy cruiser, with good armor; some made }as high as 35 knots. I'm guessing an important tradeoff is magazine }space; Most of the US cruisers are between 30 and 33 knots } I'd guess that missiles require more magazine space than }powder and shells; this extra space would have to be armored, }increasing weight and thus draught, thereby requiring more power to }maintain the speed, meaning more volume, thus more armor, ... Consider that many modern ships carry vary little in the way of ammo reserves on board. There are always a few missiles, but not a large number. Take for example the Virginia class CGN, it has the capacity for 68 missiles ready in it launchers, but has very little in the way of extra(it has some, since it launcher can carry a variety of different missiles). The ready area for missile launchers also takes up a large amount of space. }Still, I wonder how much armor would be necessary to defeat the current }and projected antiship missiles... Ships could be made a lot tougher today without vast amounts of armor, 1) Use a harder steel for the Hull, 2) Stop using huge amounts of aluminum in construction. 3) Increase the isolation of systems and increse te use of Kevlar protection. }Events clearly indicated that speed did not make up for protection. }I can't help but think that this lesson is still quite appropriate }in the modern battlefield where missiles can be fired from over the horizon }and accurately seek out even an evasive target; and one such hit can }disable the target (at least, render it ineffective for combat). speed is no longer as important, the difference between a 30 and 35 knot ship in the larger ship classes (DDG and up) is no longer that important, where it still matters though is in ASW, where speed and manueverabilty still count. }- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - }Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com } (614) 860-5294 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Bresnahan brianb@bucsf.bu.edu engf0ic@buacca.BITNET +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (04/28/89)
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) In article <5977@cbnews.ATT.COM>, brianb%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) writes: > > The exocet was designed to hit the belt of ship and sink it, not burrow > into it and cripple it. You are going to do much less structural damage > with a hit through the deck, and the exocet does not have the explosive > punch to kill a ship that way. No sea-skimming missile hits below the waterline, so it is unlikely to sink a ship that way. They *do* home in towards the central command & control centers as stated by a previous poster. Exocet does not "pop-up" as far as I know, unlike the Harpoon, which does. The resaon it does is not to evade enemy fire; in fact, by "popping-up" it exposes itself more! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Captain, I see no reason to stand here | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA and be insulted" - Spock | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------
brianb@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) (04/29/89)
From: bucsb!brianb@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) In article <6034@cbnews.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: >From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) > >In article <5977@cbnews.ATT.COM>, brianb%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) writes: >> >> The exocet was designed to hit the belt of ship and sink it, not burrow >> into it and cripple it. You are going to do much less structural damage >> with a hit through the deck, and the exocet does not have the explosive >> punch to kill a ship that way. > >No sea-skimming missile hits below the waterline, so it is unlikely to sink >a ship that way. They *do* home in towards the central command & control >centers as stated by a previous poster. > Right they hit the belt of a ship, and it puts a hole in side of the ship. As I said above, its intent is to cause structural damage. All the data I have seen on the Harpoon and Exocet, tells me that they aare designed to hit the broadside of the ship, they do not home in. Every photograph I have seen of a ship or target hit by a seaskimmer was hit in the hull area, not in the upper part of the ship. >Exocet does not "pop-up" as far as I know, unlike the Harpoon, which does. >The resaon it does is not to evade enemy fire; in fact, by "popping-up" >it exposes itself more! The only system capable of hitting seaskimmers as they make their final attack are the Close In Weapon System, like phalanx. These system fire without much human interference, and they use automatic fire control systems, and the pop-up servess to confuse these systems. Manually operated weapons are not going to stop missiles very often (ask the royal navy), and as the point where the seaskimmer pops up is well inside the range of defensive missiles. [question to moderator, I see a reply to my article here, but I never saw the original?] [mod.note: It sometimes happens. News articles sometimes get lost in the shuffle, I'm told. - Bill ] +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Bresnahan brianb@bucsf.bu.edu engf0ic@buacca.BITNET
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (05/02/89)
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) In article <6072@cbnews.ATT.COM>, bucsb!brianb@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) writes: : In article <6034@cbnews.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: : >No sea-skimming missile hits below the waterline, so it is unlikely to sink : >a ship that way. They *do* home in towards the central command & control : >centers as stated by a previous poster. : > : Right they hit the belt of a ship, and it puts a hole in side of the : ship. As I said above, its intent is to cause structural damage. : All the data I have seen on the Harpoon and Exocet, tells me : that they aare designed to hit the broadside of the ship, they do : not home in. Every photograph I have seen of a ship or target hit by : a seaskimmer was hit in the hull area, not in the upper part of the : ship. Right! I think you will find that the combat command and control center of a modern ship *is* below main deck level; it is usually burried right in the middle of the hull, giving it as much protection as possible. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Captain, I see no reason to stand here | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA and be insulted" - Spock | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------
adrian@uunet.UU.NET (Adrian Hurt) (05/03/89)
From: Adrian Hurt <mcvax!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian@uunet.UU.NET> In article <5977@cbnews.ATT.COM> brianb%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-cs.bu.edu (Brian Bresnahan) writes: > >>From: marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall) >> While none of this comes as news to me, I've never understood >>*why* they've stopped putting armor on ships. One possible factor is that if the hull's skin is thin enough, bombs may go straight through it. This happened in the Falklands, and it wasn't all due to faulty fusing. >The air defense of the Royal navy ships does not compare well to US >ships Did not compare well. As a result of the Falklands conflict, most R.N. ships had extra 20 and 30mm guns added. The "Invincible" class carriers now have the "Phalanx" system. >Type 42 Batch 1 (includes Sheffield) >Sea Dart >2Omm guns >30mm guns Those 30mm guns, and most of the 20mm's, were added after the Falklands action. Also don't forget its 114mm gun, which was always there. >Amazon Class (a.k.a. Type 21) >Sea Cat >20mm guns >114mm guns One 114mm quick firing gun. And one of these guns shot down an Exocet. >These are classes of ships which had units sunk or damaged >during the Falklands war. Also damaged was the Plymouth (an old Rothesay class). The Argentinians were probably happy about that one - it was the ship on which the surrender of South Georgia was signed. What interested me was that when a modern ship, e.g. Type 21 or Type 42 was hit, it was usually sunk. When an old ship, e.g. Glamorgan or Plymouth, was hit, it survived. And the Plymouth was hit hard, while Glamorgan took an Exocet. By quickly turning off its electronics to fool the Exocet's seeker, it only got hit in the hangar. >}The Arg AF penetrated almost total Brit air superiority and snuck under >}radar with planes flying 5ftabove waves And as a result, the British put a form of AWACS into Sea King helicopters. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (05/03/89)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <6148@cbnews.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: >Right! I think you will find that the combat command and control center of >a modern ship *is* below main deck level; it is usually burried right in the >middle of the hull, giving it as much protection as possible. That's going to be news to the people serving aboard US Navy vessels -- on every US warship I've been on, CIC has been either immediately behind or immediately below the bridge, which is placed well up in the superstructure for maximum visibility. I am also given to understand that many Soviet surface combatants don't have a CIC per se -- their weapons and electronics control areas are a lot more decentralized than Western vessels. Sean Malloy | "The proton absorbs a photon Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | and emits two morons, a San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | lepton, a boson, and a malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | boson's mate. Why did I ever | take high-energy physics?"
royf@roxanne.StPaul.GOV (Roy Forsstrom) (05/03/89)
From: royf@roxanne.StPaul.GOV (Roy Forsstrom) In article <6148@cbnews.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: > > >Right! I think you will find that the combat command and control center of >a modern ship *is* below main deck level; it is usually burried right in the >middle of the hull, giving it as much protection as possible. The California and Virginia class nuclear cruisers have the C3 area immediately aft of the bridge, several decks above the main deck. DC central, or Damage Control Central is located in a small compartment two (or three?) decks below the main deck along the centerline. These are 1970's design ships. =============================================================================== Roy Forsstrom uucp: pwcs!royf Public Works Computer Services internet: royf@pwcs.StPaul.GOV 25 W. 4th Street rboc: 612-298-5569 St. Paul, MN 56102 ===============================================================================