Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

sen: sadly the idea is not really a good one, big guns need a big platform, especially if we are going with modern high velocity cannons, the recoil on those is bloody murder, and development costs to build new guns(and turrets) will cost...well an arm and a leg anyway so why not build a big ship while you are at it, the size of the ship is not really the costly part, assuming you build it relatively simple without bell's and whistles(the reason i mentioned a onion layered 2inch approach, simple to build, simple to maintain, and would probably give pretty good protection.).

so what are the specs we are looking for?
lower manpower requirements(aiming for under 500, difficult but high amounts of automation might make it doable.)
higher mobility(since for this to have any use as a blue water ship other than as AEGIS it would need to be fast as hell, difficult but probably doable due to power requirements of next gen weapon systems.)
impressive defenses(duh.) just thought of something, some kind of spray on foam could probably cover the thermal blast from a nuke, and be blasted clear by the shock wave, good to protect weak spots like turret ring, and hatches from welding into place.
big honking ship(needed to carry munitions and such, not to mention handle recoil.)
anything else?

another thought, i heard the US needs to get rid of depleted uranium useful both as radiation and kinetic armoring, armor the ships with it?

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Nemo »

Actually the Erebus and Terror proved to be quite competent gunnery platforms. You dont need battlecruiser sized ships to be a stable gunnery platform in near shore operations. If you are trying to build a fast blue water battleship then yes it needs to be huge. And costly.



Sen you and I are about on the same page. Tack on the SPY-1F version of Aegis, give it some VLS cells midships to carry ESSM and Tomahawks. You can give it either the 16"45 or 16"/50 from the old BBs or you can standardize and give it the Zumwalts gun. Place that forward in twin mounts in turret A, single for 155mm/62. Put 5"/54s in a twin mounting in turret B. Save the after deck for drones. Give it some AoN scheme armor so it can maintain mission after taking fire from shore weapons, protect those magazines remember the Hood. Dont worry about keeping up with the fast carrier fleet. You can't have it all in a package that size and range is more useful than a few more knots of speed. It would work with landing ships and minesweepers and the like close to shore so speed is not of the essence.

User avatar
pinheadh78
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by pinheadh78 »

For a small densely packed heavily armed warship intended for coastal and river type threat areas, this example is about how much stuff you can cram into a hull that small.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_class_corvette
These have a 76mm gun, VLS short-range missiles, ASW, and anti-ship all in one package. Delete the torpedoes, four of the harpoons, and some of the excess sensors so you have enough weight capacity to add armor and you would end up with a pretty good river-monitor type ship. If you want the ship to stay primarily in the ocean then you can leave it as-is and no need to change the protection package as it wont have to deal with near-shore light weapons; it can just stand-off the beach far enough.

Strike-Length VLS for tomahawk is out as those are several meters in length, but a shorter VLS Mk 48 'tactical length' would fit a shallow-draft hull.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Nemo »

The Vic's are half the length of the Erebus and Terror, and nearly a quarter of their beam. Lets not even look at their tonnage, oi. 600 tons versus 8000. Really wasn't considering river use.

Mark 57 VLS ranges from 5-8 meters in height, depending on which module is used. That would fit on the Erebus.

Suederwind
Posts: 772
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Suederwind »

Then maybe something like this: Braunschweig-class corvette?
It does lack the armor of a monitor from the good old days and its heavy guns, but could be used in a similar way and it has a longer range thanks to its missiles.
Forum RP: Cydonia Rising
[RP]Cydonia Rising [IC]

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

discord wrote:sen: sadly the idea is not really a good one, big guns need a big platform, especially if we are going with modern high velocity cannons, the recoil on those is bloody murder, and development costs to build new guns(and turrets) will cost...well an arm and a leg anyway so why not build a big ship while you are at it, the size of the ship is not really the costly part, assuming you build it relatively simple without bell's and whistles(the reason i mentioned a onion layered 2inch approach, simple to build, simple to maintain, and would probably give pretty good protection.).

so what are the specs we are looking for?
lower manpower requirements(aiming for under 500, difficult but high amounts of automation might make it doable.)
higher mobility(since for this to have any use as a blue water ship other than as AEGIS it would need to be fast as hell, difficult but probably doable due to power requirements of next gen weapon systems.)
impressive defenses(duh.) just thought of something, some kind of spray on foam could probably cover the thermal blast from a nuke, and be blasted clear by the shock wave, good to protect weak spots like turret ring, and hatches from welding into place.
big honking ship(needed to carry munitions and such, not to mention handle recoil.)
anything else?

another thought, i heard the US needs to get rid of depleted uranium useful both as radiation and kinetic armoring, armor the ships with it?
This post will expand incrementally throughout the day, since I'm at work, and will grab time where I can, so I'll address this in order.

First, the key to a stable gunnery platform isn't raw size so much as it is the ratio of width to length. A broad enough hull will make for a plenty stable gunnery platform, especially since were talking about two heavy guns firing from a nearly center of mass turret, rather than a superfire arrangement of eight to twelve. And lets be honest, the cost of the guns alone isn't going to outstrip a 30,000 plus ton hull, armor, electronics, power plant, and other weapons. Especially if we're looking at a smaller hull (say 8,000 to 10,000) with fewer guns (one or two twin gun batteries).

Second... Why the fascination with nukes? I'll get to why the HEAT defeating 'onion' is pointless in a later addendum, but we really need to get past this nuclear scare. First, it has to get there. Shoot down the delivery system. Unlike what Hollywood would have you believe, the warhead isn't going to detonate if it's shot down, so that's your safest method, and most reliable. Turn a Phalanx or SeaRAM on it. Further, it bears repeating; you can't armor against the blast effects. You will lose whatever can't be armored, period, and wind up taking a blast wave that might well cause structural damage, armor or no. And finally, why would an enemy throw nukes when they could get results out of cheaper weapons? The reality remains that the primary threats to any surface combatant are anti-ship missiles, and attack subs using UTK detonating torpedoes. Thats what the armor and defenses will need to stand up to.

It doesn't have to sink. It just has to be neutralized as a threat. Estimates range between 11 and 41 Harpoon being needed, from various sources, to neutralize (if not sink) a ship of the size and armor scheme of an Iowa. What's a Burkes capacity again? I know it's VLS cells can carry up to 360 missiles in certain configurations. Lets cut that in half, and fire them in volleys of 60... Probably enough to neutralize a battleship. Or four MK 48 ADCAP torpedoes in UTK detonations. Note that this is NOT gospel, but rather an estimate, which really supports both sides... It can be rendered a non-threat, or even sunk, with enough of the right ordnance. But it does, indeed, take more of said ordinance.

I'll be back to discuss armoring and why HEAT isn't a threat soon.

Lunch time! Now, armoring and HEAT;
HEAT warheads are not a threat to a ship. Here's why. A HEAT warhead creates a directed, thin jet of metal plasma and thermal energy that has proven to be effective in disabling or destroying armored vehicles. This is because an armored vehicle is a compact, enclosed space where, after penetrating the armor, the jet can 'bounce' about, wrecking critical systems, bringing some molten fragments into play, killing the crew, and ignighting ammo stores. Sounds deadly, right? It is... To a Stryker or an Abrams without proper countermeasures.

Now, a HEAT warheads effectiveness in terms of penetration scales with the size of the warhead, as you'd expect, but here's the issue... It's not the penetration of the armor by such a weapon that does the job, its the fact that there are critical systems within reach for it to mangle after it does. Contrary to popular belief, an RPG's HEAT warhead isn't going to rip a thirty foot section of an aluminum hull open like a beer can... It's going to punch a one inch hole, startle the crew... And that's it. Why? Because it's not the armor or hull that it has to cross... It's thirty plus feet of open air, and bulkheads. The real damage of even a large HEAT warhead is nonexistent in such an open space, resulting in a pinhole that's literally fixable with a plug after the fact.

If you really want to armor against HEAT, take a que from what it's designed to defeat. Slat armor has been applied to successfully defeat the threat... It's literally as simple as applying sheet metal strips, propped away from the armor, to make the shaped charge detonate outside it's optimum distance, making the jet cross too much space to even be effective. Aftermath? You replace a disposable plate.

So... Not only are HEAT warheads ineffective at inflicting any real damage, obviating the need to armor against them, but they're more readily defeated completely by disposable plates, than armor sections you'd have to cut out and replace.

Now, moving on to depleted uranium as ship armor... Why not just strap lead to it? You'd be better off. Depleted uranium is 1.7 times heavier than lead. This is NOT a material you can use on a buoyant object, my good sir. Not in any quantity. The Abrams uses a thin mesh in its glacis and turret front alone... And that added two tons for that thin layer. Also, depleted uranium is not expended uranium, and can pose long term health risks for your crew. So, between literal heavier than lead weight and being hazardous, why on Earth would we use this as ship armor? There's better alternatives.

Also, this foam you mention... What is it comprised of? How is it applied without interfering with the ships workings? Is it pre placed? Sprayed at the first sign of incoming fire? How is there enough time for coverage between the warhead going off at a close enough range to be dangerous to start with? It doesn't really sound like anything I'd waste weight and space on, to be honest.

Next up... Is there a viable role for a heavily armored surface combatant of such size? See you soon!

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Nemo »

Also, this foam you mention... What is it comprised of? How is it applied without interfering with the ships workings? Is it pre placed? Sprayed at the first sign of incoming fire? How is there enough time for coverage between the warhead going off at a close enough range to be dangerous to start with? It doesn't really sound like anything I'd waste weight and space on, to be honest.
What hes proposing is actually, mostly, already in place. Aside from the mystery foam negating thermal and shock affects, the preemptive countermeasure wash down system is designed to mitigate the radiological and toxic effects of NBC warheads. So its a simple matter of creating this foam, right?

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

Nemo wrote:
Also, this foam you mention... What is it comprised of? How is it applied without interfering with the ships workings? Is it pre placed? Sprayed at the first sign of incoming fire? How is there enough time for coverage between the warhead going off at a close enough range to be dangerous to start with? It doesn't really sound like anything I'd waste weight and space on, to be honest.
What hes proposing is actually, mostly, already in place. Aside from the mystery foam negating thermal and shock affects, the preemptive countermeasure wash down system is designed to mitigate the radiological and toxic effects of NBC warheads. So its a simple matter of creating this foam, right?
Keith Laumer saw fit to use a foam solution for fire suppression that somehow could absorb a penetrating hit from a fusion warhead on an eighteen thousand ton sentient tank some five thousand years from now, so sure, why not! :D Sorry, I had to. Nothing personal, but it was too good to pass up.

User avatar
pinheadh78
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by pinheadh78 »

Senanthes - nailed it exactly

That's why modern anti-ship missiles usually carry semi-penetrating "blast fragmentation" warheads and not shaped-charge or basic HEAT charges. The goal is to punch through the ships limited armor so the warhead detonated inside the ship where the pressure-blast from the explosion will do the most damage. And if it detonates near or outside the ship... that's why its a fragmenting warhead so if nothing else it shreds the external equipment and achieve a mission-kill (or degradation at least) for follow up hits to finish the job.

Heavy armor on a ship doesn't guarantee invisibility; it just means your enemy will choose a different attack method, weapon-type, or attack something else (support infrastructure). Its much better to shoot-down, evade, or decoy the inbound threats rather than to try and protect against everything via heavy armor.

And as Senanthes reiterated, its pointless discussing nukes. If nukes are being used or the indiscriminate targeting of any potential warship; then the conflict has escalated to a point where a single ship isn't going to matter much as the infrastructure that keeps such a ship fighting (bases, support-ships, tenders, etc) are all being targeted and attacked.

As noted in other postings here, there are limits to how much stuff you can cram into a hull and still have it be functional and cost effective. Ships that need to operate in rivers (very near shore) and right off the beach would be like the Vietnam gun-boats and river-monitors but with modern equipment within the limits of such a small hull. Ships that operate primarily in the open ocean don't need much (if any armor) as active-defense is the ideal method of keeping the ship and crew operating while also giving an ability to protect other (less well defended) ships.


Update
Just as example on modern warship armoring and protection. The Arleigh Burke destroyer design does have 70 tons of mixed Kevlar and steel armor over vital spaces. Maybe it wont stop a Brahmos but it would soften the blow and smaller light weapons (RPGs, and such) are a non-issue. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

foam, something that absorbs the thermal energy of the 'heat wave' and giving insulation for the ships hull against it, never said it would protect against the shock wave, rather that the shock wave would remove most of the semi hardened foam, does not seem like an impossible substance to me.... it would help to not weld the steel hatches and turrets into place, unless it worked as solder, in which case it would be counter productive.

and no, never said that HEAT was a likely weapon system against ships, it's a pretty bad system, but if ordinary 'semi armor piercing' ASM's can not penetrate the outer shell, they are pretty useless(assuming you can protect weapons and sensors somehow, first thought is armor on the guns, bofors 40mm turrets can and have been armored and can be used effectively as CIWS and dispersed sensor drones.) so to crack the hull either heat or bigger boom needed, heat as you pointed out is pretty pointless, so bigger boom, bigger missile, more expensive, and easier to shoot down fewer carried....

the question then is can you armor against current gen ASM's? i think yes.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Terran question-and-answer thread

Post by Senanthes »

discord wrote:Bojangles: Ballistic steel as Structural material? yeah, that should work...
and on kevlar linings, those are known as spall liners, there to stop spalling(pieces of your armor breaking of inside the vehicle and killing you), not shrapnel.

but on the armor stopping ASM's, riddle me this, how does a subsonic 700kg(at launch)mostly composite stealth materials projectile go through armor that can stop a metric ton AP shell? since it HAS to explode on the inside or do diddly squat.
it would be interesting to see how much damage modern ASM's would do against a Iowa-class, or even a light tank.

reddwarf: 8 harpoon equivalents is either a danger(since ASM's can kill anything) or they are not(ASM's can't kill everything) pick one.

now that you mention it, it makes sense that the non compressible nature of water is what makes it so effective....and the fact that the bottom hull has always been one of the least armored areas for obvious reasons, but that water effect is also why water filled spaced armor is so effective, since to get through the projectile needs to move the water, but it is in an enclosed space and therefore must burst out of it, effectively making the penetration cross section that much larger, that is the theory anyway....it DOES stop HEAT rounds cold though.

hmm, non newtonian fluids for spaced armor? those things absorb kinetic energy like crazy, and has the non compressible thing going for them too.
HEAT seemed to be a focus from the get go, so pardon if I got the wrong impression, discord. :)

At any rate, to answer if it is possible to armor against modern anti-ship missiles... Yes. It's entirely possible. They wont penetrate the turret fronts or armored belt of a battleship. Is it possible to COMPLETELY armor against them to the point of where they would be entirely ineffective? No. They will still strip away vital components, hit from angles where the armor is either weak or non-existent, and generally prove to be a nuisance no matter what. Hence, why I would sooner armor against fragmentation and lighter hits, and rely more on CIWS and other active defenses.

'Dispersed sensor drones' still need to communicate, hence you'll still have antennae and other soft bits that can be blown off. Armor up your weapons, sure, I agree... But you can't simply wrap everything in the heaviest, thickest armor imaginable and call it good. The ship will turn into an unwilling submarine, or worse, be unable to support it's own mass. In the end, it's all about where that armor is, and what it's meant to stop, not just raw thickness of plate and an effort to wrap the hull completely in it. And the ultimate devil of these details... Focusing on a single threat will nearly always open doors for others to come calling.

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by JQBogus »

Might it be possible to defeat the level of armor being talked about by creating a tandem warhead?

The first element is a shaped charge, which melts a hole in the armor plate, thus creating a weak spot.

The second element is a pointy hardened steel shell filled with high explosive, which pushes through the weak spot and explodes inside the ship.

The first element could even be an add on to an existing missile, like the ones added to some anti-tank missiles to pre-detonate Explosive Reactive Armor.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

JQBogus wrote:Might it be possible to defeat the level of armor being talked about by creating a tandem warhead?

The first element is a shaped charge, which melts a hole in the armor plate, thus creating a weak spot.

The second element is a pointy hardened steel shell filled with high explosive, which pushes through the weak spot and explodes inside the ship.

The first element could even be an add on to an existing missile, like the ones added to some anti-tank missiles to pre-detonate Explosive Reactive Armor.
Always a countermeasure for any measure. I was referring to existing anti-ship missiles, such as the Harpoon or Exocet, but yes, in a broad sense, such would be my thoughts as well.

Current anti-ship missiles can be defeated by thick plate. But that really means nothing outside of a vacuum scenario (completely disregarding the effect that our heavily armored cause would have, simply by being built), since it will just prompt development of a new generation of weapons... And I'd be willing to bet that the weapon, even an expensive one, will cost far less than the ship it kills. Frankly, even if we just leaned on massive salvos of existing missiles to bring down heavily armored targets through simple cumulative damage, it would still cost far less to sink or cripple such a ship, than it would to construct or extensively repair it.

And since it often seems that this debate comes about to 'it takes time to develop a new weapon'... Yes, yes it does. But it also takes time to build ships. Realistically, how long would the advantage of a heavily armored ship last? Would it even last long enough for the lead ship to slip it's moorings? That's a question for somebody familiar with shipwrights and the actual manufacturing of such large vehicles, but in general terms, constructing a large structure takes a proportionately longer time than constructing a small one (obvious statement, I know), which skews time frames in favor of those who pursue less grand means.

We already know how to build a heavily armored ship. It still takes a while. We already know how to defeat that ship, with methods tried and true for some time now. It wouldn't take long to put together what we need to put that threat to rest. As Nemo said, quite accurately 'There's nothing new under the sun'.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

JQ: that first part of a tandem warhead is a HEAT system, which liquid filled spaced armor defeats quite well, true it would put a hole in the outer most layer of steel, and the liquid would likely go out that hole making it less effective if a second round hits, but that is why you would do a cell based armoring and multiple layers, so that it is only lowered effectiveness and only on that small area.

so no it would probably not work very well, that is the first counter i thought of myself btw.

senanthes:
on communication, antenna is a rather broad category, and can be just about anything, for instance the entire hull of the ship in question, not the BEST radio receiver i could think of, but it would be difficult to damage, a more reasonable one would be multiple strips inlaid along the railing and superstructure, you would need to do rather catastrophic damage to just about every part of the above surface structure, even a nuke would only fry one side.

and how much armoring do you think you need to stop a sub optimal kinetic penetrator(aka. ASM.), next would be layering, which means even if it penetrates the outer layer it will most likely explode in the first room, blow out panels and armored bulkheads would wreck that room, but leave the rest of the ship intact, path of least resistance.

my focus on HEAT is based on the assumption that current ASM will not penetrate a reasonable outer armoring, and HEAT is one of few methods to penetrate armor with a small package, KEP(Kinetic energy penetrator) being another, of which current ASM are presumably poor examples of.

so, the only parts of the ship designed as 'thick slab to stop everything' would actually be the weapon turrets(which incidentally could take much inspiration from tanks), the rest would in my idea here be about limiting effectiveness(ASM explode on the outside hopefully), absorbing damage(blowout panels and internal armoring.) and finally about ease of repairs(done mostly by NOT using thick slabs of metal, instead multiple layers of relatively thin metal, which 2inch would be), not impossible to stop, just damn difficult.

and do note, such a design would have prodigious amounts of CIWS, the iowa refit had 4x CIWS, i was thinking 4-10 for my design, probably six, two on each side fore and aft of the superstructure, with two more centerline fore and aft on the superstructure, for a total of six, minimum of three facing towards the threat axis....possibly two more extreme fore and aft for better sea skimming coverage for those areas.
for reference, arleigh burkes have 2 or 1, ticos have 2, i would probably go with Mk 110 57 mm gun (CIGS)(or similar) of which the zumwalt has two.

some thoughts, depth charges might be useful as anti torpedo systems, and could overpressure spaced armor work against HEAT?

User avatar
pinheadh78
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:36 am

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by pinheadh78 »

discord
Antenna's of any type don't work like that; you can't have the entire ship be the antenna, especially for higher frequencies used for satellite and radio communications. Same for Radar. The metal of the ships hull would act as a conductor which would then short immediately to the water and would be impossible to tune. Length and diameter of the antenna must also be taken into consideration as those directly correlate to which frequencies it can be efficiently tuned to and how well it receives or broadcasts those signals.

You also wouldn't get much range on the antenna (radar, radio, etc) if it was at water level with the rest of the hull.

This is why in maritime (and even land) environments the radar, radio, communication, whatever are all mounted high above the highly conductive salt-water on masts. This gives height for better range, insulation against shorts, and correct antenna proportions for easier tuning to correct frequency. Ships also already do have multiple redundant communication methods should one of them get knocked out, as well as replacement antennas (the basic radio type, not radar, etc) and limited ability to improvise temporary antennas; to regain some kind of communication method after sustaining battle damage. Not having such a capability for backup communications is a bad idea in any navy.

If you don't believe me just look up the scandal with the iPhone 4 (high-frequency cell networks signals) and its external antenna loosing signal if you touch it (IE de-tuning it) and CB / HAM radio operators.

As for the armor vs warhead vs stealth debate? I'm out, letting it go. Armor only makes scenes for very near-shore and river type ships that are within range of shore-base hellfire and tank-gun type weapons or smaller RPG systems. Out in the open ocean armor isn't going to add enough value in the modern weapons age to be worth the effort.

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by JQBogus »

Discord :

How much armor do you think it would take to shrug off (as in, not even be mission killed) an ASM?

After such ships are built, how hard would it be to develop a new generation of heavier ASMs to defeat that level of armor?

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by discord »

JQ: well, here is the big problem, that is pretty much impossible to answer without either data that is pretty damn classified or destruction testing some rather expensive and restricted hardware.
however, guesstimate from me says 2 inch ballistic steel + liquid spacing + 2 inch ballistic steel, should have a decent chance of stopping most current ASM's(shipwreck and brahmos are notable exceptions, but those are supersonic and nuclear) from exploding inside, might need another layer of liquid though, SLS -> SLSLS(about 6 to 10 inch steel in weight or so, quite doable for a large vessel) but somewhere around that should be enough.
heck, might need more 'exotic' composites, modern tank armor has significantly higher effective thickness compared to the iowa steel at less than half actual thickness....but chobham and similar are expensive as bloody hell, and trying to keep costs down here.
another problem is 'mission killed', that depends on the mission, for a BB most missions would be fire support, for that you need working guns, mobile ship(unless you are on station, at which point you just drop anchor), buoyant ship and a fricking walkie talkie, that means you could theoretically blow away the entire superstructure, punch a few holes causing significant flooding, wreck half the engines, blow the fore beyond the citadel entirely off(could happen under certain circumstances) and it would still be mission capable.

edit
since i have very little data on how supersonic ASM's effect armor, my guess would be badly.
so perhaps no 'new' generation, just a faster phasing out of older, but at 2.73 million USD/unit you don't really want to miss with all that many brahmos missiles.
/edit

pinhead: did not say the hull would be a GOOD antenna, which is why i stated i would not use it.
and the highly redundant theoretical com system i proposed would be for a single purpose, keeping in contact with flying sensor system.
hmm, might work with a towed kite radar, that would give you height and cable contact.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

*Twitches*

After more than an hour of answering every single point in detail, complete with analasys of the impact energies and comparative velocities involved, my entire post was EATEN when I hit submit. >.<

Sorry folks... But repeating that effort is not worth it. All I can say is that we don't miraculously know something that the engineers don't in all this, or the tacticians.

*Goes to flop around in the padded room*...

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by JQBogus »

I've had that happen one time too many as well. So I've taken to copying any long or involved posts to clipboard before hitting 'submit'.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

JQBogus wrote:I've had that happen one time too many as well. So I've taken to copying any long or involved posts to clipboard before hitting 'submit'.
Broke the padded room... I'll try again tonight, and follow suit in that habit.

Post Reply