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 »

pinhead: starting think people are dissing my ideas just cause it is me putting them forward.

#1 & 3 on the antenna, never said radar, never said equal to primary coms, i said backup to communicate with sensor drones(useful if the ship has sustained multiple hits and sensors and coms are down due to damage, both are targets for Anti Radiation targeting, and likely to get hit by missiles), those drones can be high up, them being a hundred km away(not that you would want them that far away in most cases.) can still be 'line of sight' so yes, it could bloody well work.
and what does the armor change? the antenna i proposed is ON the armor, multiple redundant inlay antennas on each facing means that yes, it COULD receive and send from all sides, question is if the metal armor would interfere or not, if so you would need have some distance and my first thought on this was effectively inside the railing, which easily could be non magnetic.

#2 & 4: so you are saying there has been no improvement in armor science since WW2 and thicker slabs of simple RHA steel is the most effective armoring method ever? i don't believe so.
and i agree with sen's arguments, i did not have any good numbers on penetration ability of those weapons, he found them, which leads to needing pretty thick armor, and thereby only applicable for really big ships.
although i still think layered less thick armor(the 2 inch everywhere idea) could work pretty well.

#5 those 20mm rounds(actually a 15mm sabot, but that is nitpicking) would have plenty of kinetic energy, yes, and penetration ability, yes, both enhanced by combined velocities, yes, but this is 183cm(six feet, which incidentally is the same length as my own not so humble self) of bleeping steel, 1830mm(which incidentally is about twice the RHA equivalent of the M1 turret with SEP upgrade.) although perhaps not RHA it is however hardened steel, at least for the AP version.
note, the M61(which is the gun the phalanx CIWS is based on)with best AP rounds defeats 12.5mm RHA, double that for the sub caliber penetrator used, double it again due to non perfect armoring, and a third time for meeting velocities, and you are still about 1730mm short of going straight through, at this point you might understand my claim of uncertainty about how much damage the itty bitty round will do.

heck, a M1 Abrams main gun might have trouble going 'through' under those circumstances, since the shell in questing is quite angled to boot, making a glancing shot probable.

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 »

Hi Discord
Sorry if you got that impression and a double apology if I contributed to it. But the discussion has whittled down from many people in the beginning to just a few people with three of them the most active so its less of a debate and more of... well.. something else.

If you guys want to discuss new technologies or current ships and the like (like the 'real aerospace thread') then by all means lets go!

Maybe time for a new thread? Something like "The real navy thread?" :D

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

Re: Zumwalt: Stealth and Armor in Modern Naval Combat

Post by Senanthes »

Whelp... When a debate feels like an attack, it's time to end the debate. For the record, such isn't my intent. I simply answer what's tossed out with the facts I dig up, and conclusions drawn from them. Over the course of my research, I've had a grand time in that I've learned a lot about subjects I was only peripherally aware of, so I can leave it here on a high note. See you all around!

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 »

was fun talking about it, would have loved to test out these ideas and see what happened, i still think that steel/water/more steel thing would improve armoring more than same weight in only steel, would cost in volume though, but big ships have plenty of that.

edit
assuming a 2 inch steel/12 inch water/6 inch steel or so, my guess would be a impact hard enough would rebound and knock the first plate outward, since the water has to expand, and that is the direction of least resistance.....just thinking.
/edit

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:was fun talking about it, would have loved to test out these ideas and see what happened, i still think that steel/water/more steel thing would improve armoring more than same weight in only steel, would cost in volume though, but big ships have plenty of that.

edit
assuming a 2 inch steel/12 inch water/6 inch steel or so, my guess would be a impact hard enough would rebound and knock the first plate outward, since the water has to expand, and that is the direction of least resistance.....just thinking.
/edit
I was considering a possible effective armor scheme myself a bit near the end of this...

An eight inch "drop in" module, not unlike the way the older Challenger 1 tanks were designed. The armor modules fit into pockets in the outer hull, bolted in at the top to the structure with attachment points for cables/cranes at the top of the case for (relatively) easy replacement. The outer layer is two inches thick, comprised of fist sized blocks of RHA, set in foam rubber with an edge out, creating a surface where a "straight shot" is relatively impossible to achieve. It won't stop anything beyond relatively small weapons, but it will deform virtually anything that hits it. The second layer is solid boron carbide, four inches thick, mounted in blocks about a foot long, meant to absorb kinetic impacts. The third is a two inch layer of "soft" steel or aluminum to which the boron carbide is bonded. I'd use aluminum, since the purpose of this layer is actually to compress, flex and bend, and weight is a factor. You'd want kevlar spall lining behind the modules, and they wouldn't have great multiple hit capacity, but if each was two to four feet wide, you'd likely have enough protection for at least one major engagement with effective Aegis and CIWS taking their toll on the incoming.

Thinking about it, the modules could be produced in various configurations that would allow them to be bolted to the outside of the superstructure and the deck as well. All you have to do is produce "cases" of differing size and mounting configuration. If they're light enough, they could be replaced at sea by a fleet tender... For more variety, "double proof" and "half-proof" modules (thicker or thinner) could also be used on various classes of ship. So... You've got the 'drop-in's' on the sides, bolt on modules for the superstructure, and perhaps deck plate modules mounted under a removable steel grating serving as the ships deck.

The cons are simple, and really haven't disappeared, merely been minimized in some regards. They'd still be fairly heavy, though not as much as using raw steel or water, and EXPENSIVE. Boron carbide is very expensive stuff. Also, same problems as before regarding composite armor, somewhat offset by the design. You'd have to replace them each time they were hit, but the overall module could be sent home, mostly salvaged, and reworked, helping to defray cost. It's the most effective scheme I can think of off the top of my head, and could be applied to just about any hull as an add-on module.

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: first weakness i can see is sub-surface armoring, can't be used for that at all...second, you need pretty sturdy method of holding'em in place, those drop ins are gonna weigh a fuckton.

but the basic idea of a cell based relatively easy replacement armor seems like a pretty good direction to go.

interlocking hexagonal cells(approx. 30cm-1m in diameter) with small towel hangers underneath each to sustain the weight, smaller deformation area damaged by a hit, pretty high probability the cell would go into the drink due to a hit though.
trouble though, the interlocking part makes quick repairs difficult, it improves the ability to hold it together significantly, spring loaded click in? nah, structurally unsound, would create serious weakness, might be worth it for easier repairs though.
glue? would need to be easily dissolved, which creates problems again.
electromagnetic? not a bad idea, might work as a halfway decent decoy system, but that also means it would have EM noise like....well stealth would be way out the question.
slip in attachment? using insert keyhole attachment, might work pretty well, but still has the problem of needing to move the above 'hexes' to insert....coming to the conclusion that some sort of spring loaded click in might be best for easy replacement, but it has issues.
might be better to go with squares even if that again reduces structural integrity just to make it easier to remove the cells above.

yup, squares, interlocking, keyhole and bolted in place, major issues, needs to move all above cells to exchange one even if it is fewer compared to hexes, slightly lowered ability to round things compared to hexes, too bad, hexes would have been much sexier.

or the simple method, just add more steel.

Post Reply