FYI: Navy Lasers, Railgun, and Hypervelocity Projectile: Background and Issues

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by APACHERAT, Sep 10, 2015.

  1. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those battleships can't be sealed air tight and don't have an internal independent oxygen supply. The fireball would consume all the oxygen on board no different from a thermobaric weapon used on a bunker.

    And the entire surface of the ship would be radioactive. All the air being drawn into the ship's ventilation system would be radioactive.

    Let's say the crew beneath the heavier layers of armor or within the turrets survive. Great. They are now blind and dumb. The bridge crew are dead. The radars are destroyed. The guys in the observation masts are dead. What are the turrets and engines going to do? Run in circles firing the guns blindly?

    At the very least, a nuked battleship would be mission killed and need months of scrubbing a refitting combined with an entirely new crew as the previous ones spend their last weeks literally ******** their guts out.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
  2. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Don't know what you have been reading or how much training you received in the military during the Cold War on fighting on the nuclear battlefield.

    But first lets start with the thermobaric weapon. True that it will suck the oxygen out of the air just like napalm but it only happens for a few seconds. Nobody dies from asphyxiation, it's the over pressure that kills.

    Now napalm kills by turning people into crispy critters or by asphyxiation if you happen to be a Jap in a cave or Charley in a tunnel.

    Have no idea how close you ever been to a danger close napalm CAS mission ? You can use napalm with in 110 meters of friendly troops.

    But there are two types of napalm...
    Napalm (A) which burns for 15 to 30 seconds.

    The good stuff like we used in Vietnam, Napalm (B) that can burn for up too 10 minutes that creates its own weather pattern because it's sucking the oxygen right out of the air that it changes the direction of the wind, oxygen being sucked towards the burning napalm. But the oxygen that is sucked towards the burning napalm is replace with new oxygen unless your in a cave or a tunnel complex.

    Now lets get to the nukes. Any sucking of the oxygen out of the air you are dealing with a few milliseconds. In fact not even the military paid any attention to it during all of the nuclear test that were conducted.

    So what are you dealing with during the initial nuclear detonation ? Gamma rays that all happens with in 3 milliseconds, the over pressure (blast) and the fireball that where the heat is that keeps going up and up and up really fast.

    How does one protect themselves from those gamma rays ?

    Lead is the best protection. The Iowas's 17" of armor plating is a pretty good protection, armor plating is denser than steel.

    Protection Factor
    A radiation shield is characterized by its total ‘protection factor’. For example, a shield that only lets 1/1,000 (one one-thousandth) of the gamma rays through, has a protection factor of 1000 (the modern day standard).



    RADIATION SHIELDING MATERIALS
    To achieve a protection factor of 1,000 the following chart of materials and thicknesses must be used. We’ve saved you the trouble and have factored the proper ‘halving thickness’ values of each material in order to achieve a protection factor of 1,000.

    Material Thickness (inches)
    Lead 4"
    Steel 10"
    Concrete 24"
    Packed Dirt 36"
    Water 72"
    Wood 110"


    It all can be found hear. -> https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/1toc.htm

    Now there's the second kind of radiation that is formed with in the fire ball which becomes fallout.

    Now ships are on the water not sitting on dirt. No such thing as a dirty bomb under, upon or over the water. The only radioactive fallout would be down wind in the form of water droplets.

    Going back to the 60's most U.S. Navy warships including the Iowas have a counter measures for NBC attacks, they can perform their own decontamination while at sea.

    [​IMG]

    Holly Green Amphibious ****...It's an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The USS Barry (DDG 52) conducting an operational check of the countermeasure wash down sprinkler system. The countermeasure wash down system washes the ships exterior in case of chemical, biological or radiological contamination.
     
  3. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sure glad I was to young to have served in the Marines when they used real nuclear bombs to train you for fighting on the nuclear battlefield back during the 1950's.

    [​IMG]


     
  4. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    500 USD in 1940s is a considerable sum for military budget. Could it be that you are mistaken?
    In the beginning of the war, one P40 tomahwk – would cost you around 14k USD. A shell should not cost 1/28 of a modern fighter. F18 is 60million. Calculated in slightly outdated fighters, 500 USD in 1941, equals 2million in 2017.

    You are missing the Flash,
    Loss of sight for observers, dead optics, optical channels, burning damage to radar plates, wiring, e.t.c. Possible fires around the ship.
    You are missing EMI
    Loss of electronics, communication, wiring will act like antennas, possible loss of elecro engines, lifts, all stuff with long conductors.
    You are missing G shock in case of underwater detonation. Lift a ship up by 15 meters, and the crew will be dead or disabled before it will fall back…
    Nothing lives in fireball, millions of degrees, thousands of tons of earth evaporate, left aside water. 17 inch of steel is nothing

    Battleship is a strategic weapon, which lost its superiority in distance. Extremely expensive strategic weapon. For its price you can build a much more potent fleet. Basically a barge with Tomahawks is outperformed by a battleship at a distance below 30km only, and that’s it, on all other distances you will prefer a missile barge.
     
  5. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I use to think about ships and EMP but Iearn that all important electronics, generators, etc. are protected from EMP.

    Easy to do.

    I was working on a project at the China Lake NWTC back during the 80's and crossed paths with someone. Asked him what he was working on ?
    He had a really cool job, he travels all around the world EMP proofing communication centers on U.S. military installations.

    Battle ships are only a strategic weapon when used in geoplitics (gun boat diplomacy.)


    Since WW ll, battleships have been classified as Fire Support Ships.

    Last Friday I was unpacking some boxes and one box had my collection of "Janes- Fighting Ships."
    One of my favorites is "Janes Fighting Ships 1968 - 69.

    Back when I served we had 900 commissioned ship on active duty. A 900 ship navy.
    25 aircraft carriers
    342 Fleet Escort ships
    41 Strategic Warfare ships
    9 Fire Support ships
    128 Submarines
    160 Amphibious ships
    96 Replenishment ships
    99 Mine Warfare ships
    And a couple hundred auxiliaries and support ships.

    In the U.S. Navy section of "Janes"all ships have a classification, Strategic Warfare Ships, Air Craft Carriers, Command and Communication Ships, Fleet Escort Ships, Fire Support Ships, Submarines, Amphibious Ships, and a dozen other classifications for ships.

    Under Fire Support ships the Iowa class BB USS New Jersey and 8 other heavy and light gun cruisers are listed while 11 8" and 6"gun cruisers are listed as Fleet Escort ships.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2017
  6. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I would separate EMI issues into three part from low to high.
    1. EM shielding of equipment, mostly this is to do with data security. With an antenna in another room, I can detect and decipher EM pulses of your MECHANICAL typewriter. I can monitor everything you print. EM shielding of equipment is directed not outside, but inside your computer, to conceal the EM signature, that can be picked by a van standing next to your house.
    2. Medium level protection is a complex of measures, thatcan protect you from power issues, from lightning, and from EM weaponry. At the moment a 100mm EM missile warhead, will generate an impulse roughly equal to an impulse of a lightning. Such an impulse is likely to fry electronics of an Abrams MBT if hit within 3-5 meters or so. Same applies to buildings, communication nodes, civil crevice media systems. Possibly, your friend is in that area. There are a number of measures that can be added to a communication node to increase its protection, newer to make it absolutely protected, but to increase protection.
    3. But Nuke EMI is something different. There is nothing that can be compared to the brute force, and to the speed at which the pulse strength rise. Conventional EM warheads are powered by gunpowder or very fast explosives, and these are either too slow, or limited on power (to avoid plasma generation). Nuke EMI protection is normally built-in in to a communication node, there is no or little ways to upgrade. Only dismantle the node and build another one in its place.
    For comparison. A lightning might fry your radar if it will hit within 10 meters, might not. A 1Mton nuke, might fry your radar 1000km away (this happened), than again, it might not :)


    You are aware of the concept of fleet in being? This is where you have your main profit from a BB, not when it is shooting at live people :)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being


    I am not impressed by the looks of Russian ships. The reason why their weaponry is sticking out of the hull - is not because they are trying to intimidate anyone. Its because it does not fit inside.
    Russians are absolutely superior in tank building, yes. In shipbuilding, US school is the best.


    MLRS ?
     
  7. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The U.S. Navy tried that on Dec. 7th 1941.
    It didn't work out too well.

    Except for our aircraft carriers that were at sea.

    A Navy can't keep the sea lanes open while sitting in port.
     
  8. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are different ways to use lasers. Lasers of several decades ago proved capable of destroying the sensors of incoming missiles and thus forcing them to crash.

    I think the OP is talking about using lasers to actually destroy incoming missiles outright.
     
  9. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only sensors lasers could destroy on a missile would be electro-optical. That doesn't help you if the missile is radar guided.
     
  10. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IIRC many large Soviet missiles have dual guidance systems
     
  11. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113


    The infrared systems don't usually engage until the terminal phase of the attack.
     
  12. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't that when lasers would likely target them?

    Everything I've heard about laser defense against missiles is in fact point defense.
     
    Strasser likes this.
  13. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There one big problem with naval point defense weapons systems like the Phalanx.

    You have a sea skimming Russian SS-12-N weighing in at 10,600 lbs. including its 2,000 lb. warhead traveling at mach 2.5 and if the missile is destroyed by the Phalanx you still have over 5 tons of shrapnel flying towards the ship.

    It won't sink the ship but todays warships have no armor protections and can't take hits and still keep fighting.
     
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's always been a problem with point defense systems.

    But surely the damage to a ship from kinetic energy transfer (or leftover missile fuel) is far less devastating to the ship than impact and explosion.

    Less devastating to the ship and certainly less devastating to the crew.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  15. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, but those sensors only need a second or so to acquire heat signatures.
     
  16. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Before the 1970's all USN warships were built to be able to take numerous hits and stay afloat and keep on fighting.

    Then some navy geeks decided that ships didn't need armor protection
    The thinking was that a ship had three layers of defense and would be able to destroy any attack by missiles. Someone got it wrong.

    Back in 2014 a small UAV target drone went out of control and struck the super structure of a Ticonderoga class cruiser the USS Chancellorsville.

    Put the cruiser out of commission for six months and $30,000,000 in damages.




    [​IMG]



    The following is the March 28, 2014 report from the commander’s investigation into the Nov. 16 strike of a Northrop Grumman BQM-74 target drone into the side USS Chancellorsville (CG-62). -> https://news.usni.org/2014/06/27/document-investigation-uss-chancellorsville-drone-strike
     
  17. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The game changer came, the game had to change, that’s natural that’s normal. From that moment, the BB lost its position of a strategic weapon and became a close fire support weapon. From the ruler of the sea, and all adjustment sea lanes, BB became a support weapon. For this role, BB is way too expensive and had to go.

    Money – that’s what rule the battlefield. You need three things to a wage a war, money, money and more money (C) :)


    I do not believe that fleet requires less armor, that the fleet wants its ships to sink faster and more easily. I believe that extra AA missile gives better protection than a layer of steel for the same amount of water displacement.
     
    Questerr and Dayton3 like this.
  18. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well one big thing is that most missile launchers are multi use (at least for the U.S. Navy). Even the old "single arm" Standard missile launchers on the Perry class frigates could also launch Harpoon antiship cruise missiles.

    Also IIRC during the World War Two era and up through the present day, the USN put much more emphasis on damage control procedures and firefighting (fires being one of the great killers of warships).
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  19. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    About the only major modern navies that tend to disregard damage control procedures/firefighting is the Soviet Navy and its descendent the Russian Navy.

    This is because the Soviets were heavily invested in either the "nuclear war" or the "extremely short conventional war" with the west. So they put a premium of packing as many weapons as possible on each hull because they saw their navy as being a strictly "one shot navy". Literally. Make a major strike against Western naval units and hope to disable or sink some of the key U.S./NATO units before they inevitably died.

    When your entire major war plan is "two weeks or less" you're not going to worry too much about repairing damage and getting back in the fight a couple of months down the road.

    This is why the Soviet Navy I've always said looked like "G.I.Joe" ships. Lots of obvious weapons sticking out everywhere like you would see on childrens toys.

    Unfortunately, this "weapons hanging everywhere" look always caused many politicians and so called experts to compare western and Soviet designs and automatically decide that the western vessels were horribly under armed.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  20. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you look at some of the Russians warships you have to wonder what they were thinking when it comes to battle damage control ?

    The U.S. Navy pretty much perfected battle damage control procedures during WW ll.

    American military historians give way to much credit to the aircraft carrier for winning the war in the Pacific. U.S. Navy submarines sank more Jap ships than all of the Navy, Marine and Army Air Forces aircraft combined.

    British military historians credit the U.S. Navy's battle damage control procedures for winning the war in the Pacific.

    I kinda go with the British historians.

    The Japanese battle damage control procedures were really stupid.

    The final chapter written on battle damage control was written during the Vietnam War and from that day on every American sailor would be a fireman first.

     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  21. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,672
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't the U.S. Navy have a dedicated "fire academy" that has as its purpose to train sailors how to fight shipboard fires?

    Of course that also involves lots of hazmat work as well.
     
  22. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    As far as I am concerned Russians are sailing the high seas longer than US? This means that they do not disregard damage control procedures and firefighting.
    I have heard there are many issues with the bears on their smaller ships. When they get drunk, they tend to get stuck in the narrow passages, blocking the firefighting teams access to critical compartments. But you cant deny them ship access in Russian winter, basically vodka and bears that all that keeps you warm on a non nuclear ship :)


    Do you expect for ships to be able to rearm after a nuclear exchange? Where? How? And for what reason?



    Russian ships are single use in WW3. Russians do not have ports that will not be glassed. US ships are not just weapons, they are means of upkeeping PAX USA throughout the world. Russian ships are weapon platforms and that’s it, their role – defense of home ports, defense of Nautical branch. US ships have much, much, more roles. They need more endurance, more reliability, more cost-effectiveness and more versatility. Your space and displacement is always limited, so how do you want to spend extra 20 tons of weight? More AA missiles? More armor? Or better engines? More fuel? Extra fire fighting node? Or more living space for crew?
     
  23. Kash

    Kash Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2016
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think it is a gamble. Increase weight of first salvo. Try to launch everything you have before the enemy missiles will reach you. Afterwards you are empty, less volatile.
    There is a list of logical reasons to it.


    Those British military historians :). Any chance of US loosing the war if the damage control would be 50% less effective? :)
    I would place perfect logistics above all other – non combat related aspects.


    What do you mean?
     
  24. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are, but they're also very fast and can engage multiple points so fast they are more efficient than any area interdiction, they are for practical purposes the same thing, and have a range long enough for ship defense, at about 5 km. for a ship based system, and a 100km range mounted on an aircraft. With a nuclear powered energy source on a ship, a laser costs about $1 or less per 'round', compared to much higher costs for any other type of defense using LOS, and the 'ammo' storage is already built into the ship, no extra logistical hassles or space needed, no taking up space in depots, etc., etc. They don't suffer from the divergence issues radar guidance systems do, and can handle small targets much better as a result.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2017
  25. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Aviation gas (avgas) fumes are extremely explosive. On American carriers all of the aviation fuel lines that are large pipes that run all through the ship are usually drained back into the fuel bunkers when not refueling aircraft.

    When the battle station alarm is sounded all fuel lines are drained.

    It seems the Japanese didn't have the same battle damage control procedures or the Akagi. Kaga, Hiryu and the Soryu avgas fumes wouldn't have exploded and would have likely not have sank at the Battle of Midway.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.

Share This Page