Whoa Navy!

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Speaking of armor. Two possibly revolutionary approaches may lead to much better protection at much less weight.
First- electronic armor. This was mentioned several years ago. Work by the British with US interest. It essentially consists of high capacity capacitor plates separated in an armor package. As the penetrater or jet travels between the plates, it shorts them and a very large current short circuits through the penetrater, melting it. An underlying armor layer finishes the much reduced threat. It suffers from repeat hit vulnerability, and there was some question of safety, but it has the potential to change the game. I have also wondered if this might serve as a lightweight armor for spacecraft.

The second method is the active defense. Essentially an extension of explosive reactive armor. Sensors detect an incoming threat and an interceptor missile is fired and impacts the incoming round or fires a shotgun blast of shrapnel or shaped charge warhead to destroy or greatly compromise the penetrating capacity of the incoming round. The obvious problems of sensors, decoys, reaction time, colateral damage, etc apply.
I think the Israelis have deployed a system, and the US and Russia is studying possible systems, as are probably others.

PS: I don't know how accurate it is, but I have read that the Leopard II armor consist of simple perforated armor. This armor consists of multiple layers of high tensile strength steel rods, layered and spaced so that only ~ 1/2 of the volume is actually steel. This apparently not only saves weight, but distorts and breaks up penetrating long rod kinetic energy rounds and jets so that it actually works better than double the weight of homogenous steel plate. In the M1 the sides of the bustle (?) that protects the gun port shows large rod crossections. I wonder if this is an example of perforated armour.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

I think even WWII light cruisers had a lot more than 1000mm RHA armor. It varied depending on the location on the ship of course, but with a ship, you'd be looking at a heck of a lot more.

Also remember that most naval guns don't use long rod penetrators. It's generally basically an HE shell that's been hardened a great deal with a base fuse to explode after impact and penetration. The bigger threat is missile warheads, but I'm not sure how many of them actually use their gas jet to do the penetration. The video I recall on the Harpoon(IIRC) shows the missile going into the ship before exploding. This vid shows one such impact--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpwIsZCgtM

If so, it becomes easier to defend against. In the early 20th century, ship armor changed with the tactics. When ranges extended and the angle of attack of an incoming shell increased, armor shifted from the sides to the deck. Armor would be concentrated on where a missile is most likely to hit. Besides which, when you decide on heavy armor, you assume the limitations of the weight, which may or may not pay off. I dare say though that some of the technologies used on tanks, when applied on the larger scales of a ship, would be effective against missiles.
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

D Tibbets wrote:Speaking of armor. Two possibly revolutionary approaches may lead to much better protection at much less weight.
First- electronic armor. This was mentioned several years ago. Work by the British with US interest. It essentially consists of high capacity capacitor plates separated in an armor package. As the penetrater or jet travels between the plates, it shorts them and a very large current short circuits through the penetrater, melting it. An underlying armor layer finishes the much reduced threat. It suffers from repeat hit vulnerability, and there was some question of safety, but it has the potential to change the game. I have also wondered if this might serve as a lightweight armor for spacecraft.

The second method is the active defense. Essentially an extension of explosive reactive armor. Sensors detect an incoming threat and an interceptor missile is fired and impacts the incoming round or fires a shotgun blast of shrapnel or shaped charge warhead to destroy or greatly compromise the penetrating capacity of the incoming round. The obvious problems of sensors, decoys, reaction time, colateral damage, etc apply.
I think the Israelis have deployed a system, and the US and Russia is studying possible systems, as are probably others.

PS: I don't know how accurate it is, but I have read that the Leopard II armor consist of simple perforated armor. This armor consists of multiple layers of high tensile strength steel rods, layered and spaced so that only ~ 1/2 of the volume is actually steel. This apparently not only saves weight, but distorts and breaks up penetrating long rod kinetic energy rounds and jets so that it actually works better than double the weight of homogenous steel plate. In the M1 the sides of the bustle (?) that protects the gun port shows large rod crossections. I wonder if this is an example of perforated armour.

Dan Tibbets
• I doubt on electronic armor capabilities. It seems to me as futuristic as protective field in star wars.
• ERA (explosive reactive armor) is widely used in Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian tanks. General Dynamics, one Israel company and some others sell ERA kits for lighter vehicles. For example IFV Breadly. This is link of T-72 with older generation ERA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T-72_Ajeya1.jpg (brick like modules). Older ERA weakens only shaped charge jet’s effect. Modern has also tangentially moving plates and as claimed has also some destabilizing effect on kinetic penetrator. Nevertheless ERA is overcome by tandem warhead.
• There is also NERA (non-explosive reactive armor) in which penetrating jet destroyed by shock waves in plastic media. As I know widely used in modern western tanks, Merkava and Korean K2.
• Aluminum alloys (alloying with Li, etc.) gives good prize in weigt.
• Some other alloys.
• Ceramic (Al2O3, Silicon Carbide, Boron Carbide, Boron Nitride – the last is rather expensive but has good properties) plates, pellets, balls glued or placed in plastic matrix.
In fact good protection can be provided only by composite armor – combination of mentioned. Nevertheless Kornet that is not top attack missile have provided 30% penetration probability vs. Merkava. I am sure that Javelin would provide near 100%.

93143
Posts: 1142
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Post by 93143 »

Joseph Chikva wrote:I doubt on electronic armor capabilities. It seems to me as futuristic as protective field in star wars.
Are you familiar with it? It seems that it has undergone testing; I seem to recall an anecdote where a tank equipped with it took multiple armor-piercing rounds with only "cosmetic damage"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_ar ... ged_armour

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

93143 wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:I doubt on electronic armor capabilities. It seems to me as futuristic as protective field in star wars.
Are you familiar with it? It seems that it has undergone testing; I seem to recall an anecdote where a tank equipped with it took multiple armor-piercing rounds with only "cosmetic damage"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_ar ... ged_armour
Seriously not familiar.
At this level (Wikipedia) and a little more - yes.
My doubt is hardened by that fact that I am hearing about electric armor during a years. And always heard something like "undergone testing". But not about real designs.
Do you know how many companies are engaged with armoring? Beginning from monster such as General Dynamics, BAE Systems and ending with garage scale firms. No one has developed something used in real vehicles.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

kunkmiester wrote:I think even WWII light cruisers had a lot more than 1000mm RHA armor. It varied depending on the location on the ship of course, but with a ship, you'd be looking at a heck of a lot more.

Also remember that most naval guns don't use long rod penetrators. It's generally basically an HE shell that's been hardened a great deal with a base fuse to explode after impact and penetration. The bigger threat is missile warheads, but I'm not sure how many of them actually use their gas jet to do the penetration. The video I recall on the Harpoon(IIRC) shows the missile going into the ship before exploding. This vid shows one such impact--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpwIsZCgtM

If so, it becomes easier to defend against. In the early 20th century, ship armor changed with the tactics. When ranges extended and the angle of attack of an incoming shell increased, armor shifted from the sides to the deck. Armor would be concentrated on where a missile is most likely to hit. Besides which, when you decide on heavy armor, you assume the limitations of the weight, which may or may not pay off. I dare say though that some of the technologies used on tanks, when applied on the larger scales of a ship, would be effective against missiles.
I missed your post.
You are wrong - 1 sq.m. of 1000mm RHA weighs about 8t.
Here is typical dimensions of WW2 era light cruisers (Soviet 26 bis - data has taken from wiki) 191.1x17.7x10.
Only sides has surface 2x32470=64940 m2
That makes 519,520 tons. Recall displacement 7700 t :)

PS: Armoring data of 26bis light cruisers (taken from the same source):
Sides and lower deck, traverses - 50 mm
Control building - 100-150 mm
Turrets - 50-70mm
So, too far from 1000mm
Source (Russian):
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1% ... 0%B8%D1%81

Pardon, my weight estimation is wrong: sides area estimation 2x191.1*10=3,822 m2
3,822 m2*8 t/m2= "only" 30,576 tons :)
The video I recall on the Harpoon(IIRC) shows the missile going into the ship before exploding.....If so, it becomes easier to defend against.
Yes, it is so. Also Maverick missile has the similar warhead. Nevertheless Maverick in case of hit with 100% probability destroyed Iraqi T-72 from any directions including head. Yes, T-72 weighing only 48 tons is not the most defended tank. But any tank will be killed after direct hit even of 155mm HE shell.
This is what remains from tank after direct hit of 155mm HE http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w5/artillery_04.jpg
Also try to find the article «Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can’t Kill Armor?», Major (Retired) George A. Durham, Field Artillery November-December 2002
Tank company’s capabilities will be dramatically decreased with some tanks total annihilations even if you carry on those tanks 155mm indirect fire with 50% air burst and 50% point detonation fuses settings.
http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w4/art_03.jpg
As any tank has very vulnerable external equipment without which its fighting capacity is equal to zero.

Also for note very dumb lightweight and at the same time should be effective: http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w4/art_05.jpg

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

I found:
Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can’t Kill Armor?
http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2002/NOV ... S_8_11.pdf
Myth #1—It requires a direct hit with an artillery round to damage or destroy an armored vehicle. Not true; 155-mm rounds that impact within 30 meters cause considerable damage (Figure 5). Air bursts using VT or dual-purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM) can strip away communications, sights, vision blocks and anything stored on the outside of the vehicle. These air bursts are especially effective against soft targets such as multiple-rocket launchers (MRLs). (See Figure 6.)
Myth #2—It takes 50 artillery rounds to destroy or damage a tank. Not true. It takes one round (Figure 7). If an artillery battalion engages an armored formation (54 rounds), more than one tank will be destroyed or damaged.
Myth #3—Artillery cannot engage moving targets. It is difficult, but it can be done. The issue is not lethality, but the tactics, techniques and procedures to hit the moving target. Units must train to shift fires.
Myth #4—Modern armor cannot be defeated by artillery. Tanks are designed to kill tanks, and most of the armor is designed to protect against direct fire. HE rounds with VT or delayed fuze and DPICM are very capable of defeating “modern” armor (Figure 8).
Myth #5—Armored vehicles can button up and drive through artillery fire. Yes, they can. But as soon as they button up, their ability to see is reduced by approximately 40 percent. And as they drive through the artillery fire, there is a high probability they will have mobility and firepower damage or that the formation will change its direction of attack. The results are delay and suppression of armor.
Last edited by Joseph Chikva on Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

kunkmiester
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:51 pm
Contact:

Post by kunkmiester »

I'll have to concede that to some extent, I looked up a US cruiser class, and a "heavy" cruiser was only 9100 tons. To be honest I'm looking at a ship at least 12,000, perhaps closer to 20K. Much bigger, but also much more weight for armor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_class_cruiser
BTW, the pages on the us classes indicate that most of the 8" armed classes were built to Washington naval treaty specifications. I doubt a modern navy would be as concerned about that.

I also goofed on the armor, didn't quite realize at first that 1000mm is a meter, and over three feet. Not even the 16" battleships had that much armor anywhere. :shock: IIRC the navy tested 24" or so armored turrets gotten from the Japanese after the war and found that they weren't proof against the 16" gun like the Japs thought they'd be.

The 16" battleships ranged from 7.5 to 19.7 inches. The abram's armor to use an example is supposed to protect to 1300mm RHA equivalent, but I'm quite sure it's not nearly that thick, 8 inches at most probably. If I were to guess, modern armor techs would give a ship with a 5" belt at least double the RHA equivalent, probably more.

I'd say a modern armored ship could be quite competitive. The only big deal would be the expense--the larger missiles could kill it, and the price tag would start justifying using them pretty dang quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship
Evil is evil, no matter how small

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Iowa_class_battleship long time is a part of history.
MBTs have the same future.
Dinosaurs too were big and strong.
But they have died out.
The abram's armor to use an example is supposed to protect to 1300mm RHA equivalent, but I'm quite sure it's not nearly that thick,
It can be thicker in dimension but lighter in weight. But how lighter if recall Uranium layer? Ceramic should win I am sure.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

D Tibbets wrote:The second method is the active defense. Essentially an extension of explosive reactive armor. Sensors detect an incoming threat and an interceptor missile is fired and impacts the incoming round or fires a shotgun blast of shrapnel or shaped charge warhead to destroy or greatly compromise the penetrating capacity of the incoming round. The obvious problems of sensors, decoys, reaction time, colateral damage, etc apply.
I think the Israelis have deployed a system, and the US and Russia is studying possible systems, as are probably others.
Sorry, I thought you spoke about reactive armor.
If you talk about active defense, Russians claimed successful development of Arena system about ten years ago. Ukrainians promote their Drozd system. Not as tested but in quite marketable products.
But we - Georgians have Ukrainian tanks without Drozd and in the war against us I have not seen Arena mounted on Russians’.
So, declaration and reality are not the same.

Active defense are in development in Israel, USA, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany. May be also somewhere else. But in Lebanon Israelis also had not their Trophy system.

The great disadvantage of Russian and Ukrainian active defense systems is that they produce very high energetic fragments. So, they are dangerous for friendly infantry. In case if even they work properly as claimed in their advertising booklets.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

Speculation from what I've read is that it is multiple layers of Kevlar blanket, UHMWPE, and a composite of an "-ide" (I don't know which one) and DU. For the penetrator to get through, it has to break and or shove aside the ceramic through the tough heavy DU, everytime it hits a ceramic chunk it has an opportunity to be blunted, fragment, and deflect. As that happens the Kevlar and plastic accommodate the bulk deformation without spalling off the backside, and the first time the penetrator fails to break the ceramic it's done. It ends up sticking out like an arrow (or for a metal jet, becomes dispersed metal dust between the layers).

Trivia: I believe the AC in the Abrams is as powerful as it is because they need to keep the UHMWPE from undergoing a phase change that dramatically lowers it's strength. Under armoring applications, it's darn near a lubricant to the penetrator after that happens. I can't remember the temperature, but once it gets above that temperature, it's no better than a layer of milk jug.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

TDPerk wrote:Speculation from what I've read is that it is multiple layers of Kevlar blanket, UHMWPE, and a composite of an "-ide" (I don't know which one) and DU. For the penetrator to get through, it has to break and or shove aside the ceramic through the tough heavy DU, everytime it hits a ceramic chunk it has an opportunity to be blunted, fragment, and deflect. As that happens the Kevlar and plastic accommodate the bulk deformation without spalling off the backside, and the first time the penetrator fails to break the ceramic it's done. It ends up sticking out like an arrow (or for a metal jet, becomes dispersed metal dust between the layers).
I think that there is a much more complicate structure. You should add at least one layer of NERA cells filled also with plastic.
As the structure described by you will badly withstand to shape charge jet.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

I was describing what I've read. I have not heard of the Abrams having such--NERA cells--so I have not included it in the description.

I suspect you underestimate the degradation to a shaped charge jet when it must force it's way through or be deflected by an enormously hard refractory ceramic, the body or fragments of which ceramic must be forced through DU metal.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Post by Joseph Chikva »

TDPerk wrote:I suspect you underestimate the degradation to a shaped charge jet when it must force it's way through or be deflected by an enormously hard refractory ceramic, the body or fragments of which ceramic must be forced through DU metal.
Thanks, may be.
What is "enormously hard refractory ceramic"?

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

Boron or carbon nitiride, or tungsten carbide. Most of the "-ides" I've heard of being used for armoring purposes have already been mentioned in this thread.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Post Reply