Re: Stealth and Countermeasures...

Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:

>
>
> > A lot of research has been done on this.  Good designs don't have
vital
> > components outside of the protection envelope.
>
> True. But how vital is vital? Magazines are vital. Steering is vital.
> Fire Control is vital. Weaponry is vital. Buoyancy is vital.
Propulsion
> is vital.
> Even the Iowas (probably the best protected ships ever built) don't
have
> that half-metre thickness of armour everywhere "vital". e.g. the
> secondary weapons, the Tomahawk launchers, the radars, the
> communications antennae, about 40% of the waterline etc.

The Bismarck and Tripitz had a lot (possibly most, I don't know) of the
piping
and cabling outside of the turtle deck.  This meant that while all of
their
vital components were protected, most of the infrastructure to use them
wasn't.  I personally don't like Tomahawks on Iowa's specifically
because they
aren't armored.  There have been several capital ships (BB's and BC's)
severely damaged or sunk because of un-protected magazines.  The
explosion
that put the Hood down didn't happen where main magazines were, but
rather
where the spare torpedo warheads were stored.  There was no armor
protection
there.	If you can't protect a highly dangerous item, don't mount it on
a BB.

>
>
> Sounds as if you know your onions on this one though. May I recommend
> Friedman's "Battleship Design and Development". I met the guy at a
Royal
> Navy Equipment Exhibition awhile ago, and he's the best source I know
on
> warship architecture and the compromises that have to be made.

Sounds, I'll have to check it out.

>
>
>  The "turtle deck" design
> > of the Bismarck and Trippitz were quite bad in this respect, and how
> > much of a pounding did the Bismarck take with this less then ideal
> > design after a lucky torpedo hit???
>
> Main problem was a weak stern, aft of the citadel. Frame A32 IIRC.
> German naval architects never did get this right, most of their
designs
> from destroyers upwards were too weak there.
>
> >  The Iowa's design is very good and
> > would take much more damage.  A modern battleship would be even
> > better...
>
> Concur.
>
> > > an Otomat or other small
> > > terminal-diver coming in could cause serious (non-fatal) grief.
And 20
> > >
> > > of them would almost certainly result in the ship's destruction.
> >
> > Let's shoot a Nimitz with 20 too while where at it.  A modern BB
would
> > have a chance survival.  Would the Nimitz???
>
> Better than you think: I forget the name of the US Carrier that had a
> Really Bad Day in the gulf of Tonkin in the 60's. An A-6B landed
badly,
> amidst an alpha strike fully fuelled and armed. Over 20 tonnes of
> ordnance went off within a minute, all round the ship's stern.
> Equivalent of about 60 Otomats, all in the same area of the ship. Lots
> and lots of holes in the 12" of armour that was the flight deck over
the
> reactor.

Sure, the carrier can take it where it has armor, but unless your
opponent is
stupid, the missiles are going to impact the side of the ship where
there
isn't any armor...

>
>
> Funnily enough though, even a single sea skimmer might have sunk her.
A
> single warhead entering the side and detonating the contents of the
> flight deck might have been more damaging.

Yep, carrier are great but they can go away very fast.

>
>
>
> > Check the effects of HE shells in Juttland.  One of the German ships
was
> > using them exclussive.  While it did degrade enemy fire, it was not
> > nearly as effective as they hoped.
>
> ..but the Brits were the ones who mainly used Common Shell, and it was
> that rather than their p*ss-poor AP that did the damage.
>
> >  These rounds (and missiles) are best
> > against lightly or unarmored targets.
>
> Absolutely True, agree completely.
>
> >  Nimitz's, Tico's, etc.
>
> With the caveat that any CVN's flight deck is heavily armoured, agree.

The flight decks aren't going to stop plunging fire very well.	To much
kinetic energy from something design to penetrate heavier armor then the
flight deck.

>
>
> > With
> > satellite guided rounds, effects of damage to ship fire control is
not
> > as disabling as you suppose.
>
> Um. Why not?

There is no reason why can't have a massive number of mini-attenas the
size of
cellular phone.  All the electronics to make it work would be below the
armor,
so you would end having to blast the ship from on end to the other. 
Easy to
do if the ship is in port, but quite difficult if she is free to
maneuver.

>
>
> >  As for one AS-6 taking out a turret if it
> > gets a lucky hit; gee, the battleships got 3 more...
>
> Though only 2 operational, as the relevant magazine would be flooded
as
> a safety measure. Maybe it's my British Heritage, but such names as
> Hood, Queen Mary etc spring to mind.

That depends of the designs of the magazines...

>
>
> >  One AS-6 will
> > probably operationally kill a Nimitz WITHOUT a lucky hit...
>
> For 6 hours, yes. (Based on Gulf of Tonkin data above)

For 6 hours the ship won't be able to provide ground support, if the
AS-6
doesn't hit the side.  But what if it does hit the side.

>
>
> > >  Give it a precursor warhead, and its speed would
> > > cause
> > > it go through the deck armour too. But better would be to give it
an
> > > EMP
> > > warhead to KO the ship's electrical system.
> >
> > Speed alone will not cause it to go through the deck armour.  It
will
> > have to have an airframe capable of withstanding the shock without
> > breaking up.  If you do that, you end up with a SAP Sunburn.
>
> Correct, but precursor warheads are very bulky (won't fit in a gun
> barrel OR won't stand the shock) but light. So instead of using 90% of
> explosive traded for metal to batter your way through, you only lose
> 10%.
>
> >  But an EMP
> > warhead would be so much more useful against a Nimitz.  90 airplanes
> > without functioning avionics.
>
> Very true.
>
> >  The battleship would still require one massive pounding to
> > put down.
>
> One under-the-keel explosion under the stern would take out the props.
> OK, the ship isn't sunk. Heck, if some people are to be believed, the
5
> longtitudinal stringers on the Iowas mean that it would take dozens of
> underkeel hits to discomfit them (and Carriers likewise I might add).
>
> But one, just one hit near the props will make that 100,000 t of
> fighting ship into 100,000 t of very heavily armed unpropelled barge.
> Fitting new props (which weigh hundreds of tonnes each) is a long job
> for a shipyard. Assuming the shafts haven't ripped holes in the side -
> not an unreasonable assumption in a very well built ship.

Use multiple electric propulsars and you don't have the shaft problem.
Civilian ships have been using them for years.	It is past time for an
experimental live fire test to see how they would hold up to damage.

>
>
> Remember Bismark was sunk by her crew opening the scuttles. But this
was
> hours after she lost all communication, propulsion, and ability to
> fight.

If the Bismarck had been a KGV or Iowa, then it would have probably been
rescued.  The German Navy was too outnumbered.	Granted the rescued ship
would
probably need to be rebuilt, but that is usually both faster and cheaper
then
building a new capital ship.  A carrier wouldn't be alive.

>
>
> A 100,000 tonne ship in littoral waters that has its propulsion KO'd
is
> a nightmare. Towing it out of battle would be an interesting exercise.

With 200 nm guns why would you go closer then 100 nm to the shore if
there was
a significant threat?

>
>
> BTW I'm a mere spectator at the great "BB vs CV" fight. THe CV
> proponents  greatly overstate their case, but the BB ones even more
so.
> There's a very good case for a new Monitor, but I know the technology
in
> the Iowas, and  putting them back in service would be a Very Bad Idea
> Indeed.

I never said I wanted Iowa's back in service. I said I wanted a
modernized BB
with the Montana as the base line.

IAS

>
>
> --
>		http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
> | Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx	  Improve his shining tail?
> | Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
>  abrain@cs.adfa.edu.au o O*OO^^^^OO*O o oo	 oo oo	   oo
>			 By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale