Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

why the elimination of armor in modern naval ships?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • why the elimination of armor in modern naval ships?

    the title says it... I can somewhat understand the elimination of large caliber guns from service, what with missiles and planes being able to accomplish largely the same tasks, but almost everyone who mentions bringing back the Iowas mentions their ability to endure a large amount of punishment while continuing to fight. I realize that there are many "active" defensive measures that exist today, but isn't that putting a lot of faith in technology, when one missile could potentially sink your ship? It cant be a cost issue, because these ships are so expensive as it is, whats a hundred million more invested in armor?

    So, what gives, why dont we see armored missile cruisers or something of the like?


    (PS please excuse the questions if it seems silly, I dont know a terribly large amount about warships, but I greatly enjoy reading what you guys have to say)

  • #2
    those iowas took punishment from what??? guns? dumb bombs?

    modern missiles can go thru yards of reinforced concrete, armor wont stop them, plus some todays missles don't hit the ship on the sides, but fall straight(almost) down.

    amount of armor needed to protect against today missles wolud have to be huge, extreamly heavy, would make a ship moving as fast as row boat.


    so imo the answer is, armor is no longer effective. same reason why knights stopped wearing armor as firearms advanced, thou now we see body armor comeback, but cruise\bunkerbuster missile is something a lot more potent than bullet, even modern one.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

    Comment


    • #3
      Our carriers are armored...
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        I honestly view it alot more as a cost saving measure. Theres no particualarly good way to armour radar and radio antenna's and still have them be effective. You also have a tough time armouring the rudder and screws. With modern weapons without the anntenne aren't very effective. Once you go to taking those out the enemy forces can completely cripple the ship without much risk by hitting the rudder and screws. At that point you are going to be paying about 75% of the costs of a new ship repairing the armoured hulk.

        An unarmoured ship can't withstand nearly the punishment and remain afloat but is much less expensive to operate and build, once you realize that you can take nearly the same ammount of damage and remain combat effective. The armour is alot of cost without a huge ammount of gain.

        Comment


        • #5
          It'd be interesting using the Iowa hulls as a missile battery though
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • #6
            The USS Cole is still operational. It's not like modern naval vessels are floating cans of napalm, as the OP implies.

            If there's any legitimacy to this it's not like the armor was ever that thick to begin with. An RPG-7 is speced to penetrate ~13" of armor.

            The Battleship in the sense it is known to modern man was based around big guns being able to engage targets effectively at maximum range, thereby hindering their ability to fire back effectively. They're no longer the longest ranged, the most reliable means of engagement, nor is their armor that difficult to defeat and the Zumwalts should do NGFS better.

            You have more reason to question the tendency of modern fighters to lack self sealing fuel tanks.

            Why is it we have so many people going ga-ga over 60 year old ships, but the new Zumwalts with 150mm hypersonic rail guns are treated as a, meh? I kind kind of get the AGS being seen as unglorious, but the hypersonic railgun?
            Last edited by FOG3; 16 Sep 09,, 01:29.

            Comment


            • #7
              thanks for all the responses thus far, I guess basically it sounds like armor costs too much and can be too easily defeated today.

              FOG3, i didnt mean to make them sound like "floating cans of napalm," its just from reading the specs on new ships it seems that if something manages to make it through the missiles, phalanx, etc, the ship will end up looking like swiss cheese in short order. And what is this rail gun you speak of? I have never read about anything beyond early prototypes. And I do happen to the think the AGS is pretty cool, cant wait to see it deployed.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's not an issue of armor verse no armor. Defense is an entire comprehensive system, of which armor is just a component. Just because the bigger RPG-7 PG-7VL projectile and PG-7RVs penetrate 600mm (23.6") RHA and 750mm (29.5") RHA respectively, instead of 330mm RHA, should be able to penetrate just about any armor face on an Iowa if my link is valid doesn't mean it'll sink because some smart ass in a speed boat did a drive by.

                If you doubt the navweaps.com link in my previous post for some reason here's the 2006 & 2009 press release on the contract from the developer aka BAE systems.

                Yes it's still in development, but the Zumwalt's aren't exactly fully assembled yet either.
                Last edited by FOG3; 16 Sep 09,, 03:49.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You're all wrong. It was a topside weight saving measure.

                  In WW II and the Korean War American warships were designed to withstand certain types of weaponry even ABOVE the main deck. I worked on a Destroyer that had plug welds in the superstructure where the skipper literally beached the ship to provide close-in fire support. Commie troops peppered the ship with rifle and machine-gun fire.

                  But didn't do one iota of damage except giving the DC gang a chance to improve on their welding techniques.

                  Then came the contract manufacturers of "better" antennas, "better" receivers an "better" black boxes that insisted that for the system to work the main receiver could be no more than a 50 foot run of waveguide or coax to work properly. Otherwise the warranty was void.

                  So all the heavy, unmovable electronics equipment was moved above the main deck (in some cases WELL above the main deck). Crew quarters and galleys were moved down below. Originally, critical equipment was below main deck to use the value of thick shell plating and extra bulkheads to at least protect it from shrapnel.

                  Now, topside weight is so critical the superstructures on all ships is aluminum which is 1/3 the weight of steel but also 1/3 the strength. We could not afford (weight wise) to armor anything above the main deck. Only some Spruance class Destroyers were able to take some added "Fragmentation Protection" of extra thick aluminum in specific places (read my chapter on Armor in my book).

                  Additional black boxes and gee whiz gizmos brought the Perry Class Frigate up from 2700 tons to 3100 tons. We had to take over an entire fuel tank and fill it full of lead ingots. Additional reinforcement of the hull was needed and the waste drains raised a full foot so they would dump poo poo above water.

                  Only the Battleships were big enough, broad enough, ballast compensable enough to add more armor topside. Even then it was called "Fragmentation Protection" to stop shrapnel from a near miss.

                  Even for terrorists zipping along in a speed boat with a 12.7mm machinegun required me to design an armored dolly for the AVGAS fuel bladder for the RPV planes on the BB's.

                  I was tasked to design armor for the ammo magazines of the Tarawa Class LHA's and the Spruance Class DD's. Being an ex tank crewman that loved the Mah Deuce .50 MG, I always tried to sneak in thick enough design to stop ball ammo from that kind of gun.

                  But it can't be done easily, not without violating contractural agreements with the suppliers of the electrontonic doo-hickeys.

                  See my chapter on "How do I get out of this C**S**t outfit?
                  Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What about the arrival of nuclear weapons?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      *Armor is very effective to the nay sayers. When was the last time YOU saw an armored ship on the order of a battleship etc. hit by a missle that actually penetrated even 4" of real armor. You havent. The vast majority of missles these days fired from ships,subs etc are like most others, they follow a parabolic arc once they assend unless fired from an aircraft that can follow a direct path without the need of a parabolic arc approach.
                      Last edited by Dreadnought; 16 Sep 09,, 17:24.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        Our carriers are armored...
                        *Yes they are.;)
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                          What about the arrival of nuclear weapons?
                          The US learned alot from the Able and Baker Atomic tests at Bikini, some of the BB's and a few others had to be sunk by the Navy since they would not sink on their own. They reboarded them and made detailed damage reports that would help them in the future building of warships.
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                            *Armor is very effective to the nay sayers. When was the last time YOU saw an armored ship on the order of a battleship etc. hit by a missle that actually penetrated even 4" of real armor.
                            When was a BB was hit by a missile, period? And how many of those were not "penetration high explosive blast" ala the Harpoon? The only incident I remember hearing about was the Soviet HEAT warheaded Styx against a Dreadnought that was supposed to penetrated clean through.

                            Seems as how no one has bitched me out on the armor figures I provided, I'm going to assume they're accurate enough. In which case a modern 120mm APFSDS DU should go clean through it at its effective range and be a real threat to the magazine.

                            Can anyone tell me why one couldn't RFP for a Naval gun of 5-6.1" capable of firing an equivalent long rod projectile able to fire 6-12 rounds per minute that would be able to hit a Iowa a respectable range out of the range of the Iowa's ability to hit the Destroyer this gun would be mounted on? Or why the Zumwalt's railgun shifting between the tungsten cube stuff and an AP round wouldn't accomplish the same? Or the ultimate question, why the 60 year old ships wouldn't be in deep trouble if facing off against a few ships so armed in a pure gun duel?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by FOG3 View Post
                              When was a BB was hit by a missile, period? And how many of those were not "penetration high explosive blast" ala the Harpoon? The only incident I remember hearing about was the Soviet HEAT warheaded Styx against a Dreadnought that was supposed to penetrated clean through.

                              Seems as how no one has bitched me out on the armor figures I provided, I'm going to assume they're accurate enough. In which case a modern 120mm APFSDS DU should go clean through it at its effective range and be a real threat to the magazine.

                              Can anyone tell me why one couldn't RFP for a Naval gun of 5-6.1" capable of firing an equivalent long rod projectile able to fire 6-12 rounds per minute that would be able to hit a Iowa a respectable range out of the range of the Iowa's ability to hit the Destroyer this gun would be mounted on? Or why the Zumwalt's railgun shifting between the tungsten cube stuff and an AP round wouldn't accomplish the same? Or the ultimate question, why the 60 year old ships wouldn't be in deep trouble if facing off against a few ships so armed in a pure gun duel?
                              *First and foremost, the armor carried by the Iowas or any other class before them was much different armor then what they call armor today. They were pre atomic bomb armor. Not made like that today not in the last 60 years atleast. Density is much different and thats why when a ship from those days gets scrapped it (the armor thats removed) is used in scientific tests, they use it for shielding. I have posted on this before with links.

                              *Maximum range you are getting out of a 5" gun these days is no more then 15 nautical miles at best.

                              *The Zumwalts have a long way to go and the railgun they hope to mount even further. Basically IMO you will have the Zumwalts before the railguns are perfected so IMO very doubtfull they will ever make it on time to be aboard the only two Zumwalts that were approved. The railguns penetrating power is pure kinetic energy, but getting that kind of power down to an workable size is going to be a long and hard road.

                              *Yes they would be in trouble, Modern tech against 65 year old tech but one thing is for sure, The Iowa's are going to take more then one hit before they are in trouble. Can you say the very same for the Zumwalt or other getting hit by a 16" shell? IMO, thats trouble on the very first hit and more then likely a kill with todays passive armor schemes.

                              * Aiming for a magazine in a gun duel is a waste of time (and more then likely your life) when you should be systematically aiming for the bridge, communications and then turrets.;)
                              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X