Ask anything Thread

ritalinla said:

I saw some article mentioned china had developed a new way to launch jets from carrier, like cold lauch of missle from ship but instead of vertically, it position horizonital. Does this ever tried by US?

Click to expand...

G forces would kill the pilot if you did it like a VLS. Early on there were trials of Tail sitter Aircraft that used Propellers of Vtol for such but out side of a drone the transition would cause problems.

OT

TerraN_EmpirE said:

G forces would kill the pilot if you did it like a VLS. Early on there were trials of Tail sitter Aircraft that used Propellers of Vtol for such but out side of a drone the transition would cause problems.

Click to expand...

And that was in the 'fifties', the Convair XFY-1 ( 0 and the Lockheed XFV-1 ( ). I have been fascinated by these aircraft. And don't forget the Ryan X-13 ( ) and the SNECMA Coléoptère ( ).

Is it viable to install space armour and composite armour like those used in battle tanks, on critical parts of large war ships, like the bridge, CIC, ammunition store etc.?

lcloo said:

Is it viable to install space armour and composite armour like those used in battle tanks, on critical parts of large war ships, like the bridge, CIC, ammunition store etc.?

Click to expand...

That should make the smaller anti-ship missiles ineffective and force the navies to go to larger ships to carry the armour and the larger missiles. We already have seen examples in the Pyotr Velikiy and her sisters.

lcloo said:

Is it viable to install space armour and composite armour like those used in battle tanks, on critical parts of large war ships, like the bridge, CIC, ammunition store etc.?

Click to expand...

I already asked something similar in post 97.

Although I was thinking more along the lines of ERA to save on weight as much as possible.

@ plawolf, yes, I saw your post #97, I must have forgotten about it.

lcloo said:

@ plawolf, yes, I saw your post #97, I must have forgotten about it.

Click to expand...

Having thought about it, your idea of using hard armour might have an interesting twist.

Most modern AShMs are designed with a delay fuse warhead so the warhead detonates inside the target ship for maximum effect.

I wonder, what would happen if the missile hit a solid, unyielding block of steel thicker than its kinetic force alone could penetrate?

If that happens, I think there is a fair to high chance the missile would literally dash itself to pieces against the armour and its warhead not detonate at all.

Now, obviously a simply duel charge warhead would easily counter that, but that would take up additional weight and space, making enemy missiles larger and/or making their warheads smaller. Since more and more navies are switching to VLS launched missiles, the later seems more likely, which should increase the survivability of ships when hit.

In addition, if you up armoured your new warships in secret, and no one else knew, they would fire old school, unity warhead missiles that will be largely ineffective against your ships' armour packages.

For the Iowa class BB I think someone did an amateur analysis and arrived at the figure of 11 exocet missile hits to the side hull armour resulting in penetration to have a 50% chance of mission kill.

Granted modern missiles often attack from the top and you can also target the radar/sensor.
However it is still my believe that a BB without air protection is still a dead BB, and that if people can choose they would still choose a carrier than a BB most of the time as the centre of their task force.

Plus you need to consider the overall effectiveness and survive-ability of the fleet. Missiles aren't choosy so there is not much point having your battleship being the sole part of the fleet to survive unless your whole fleet is composed of battleships, and then it may have been better to have a modern carrier based fleet instead.

To up-armour your warships to the same survive-ability of a battleship you'll need a minimum tonnage that would be much larger than todays ships for an equivalent mission profile.

no_name said:

To up-armour your warships to the same survive-ability of a battleship you'll need a minimum tonnage that would be much larger than todays ships for an equivalent mission profile.

Click to expand...

That would be similar to the introduction of modern battleships in 1906 and with similar effects on the budgets of navies. Nice to think about, not nice to pay for.

Hi, I'm new here. I'm not a military analyst or even an expert. I just a fanboy who like Chinese military hardwares. So please forgive me if I'm doing some foolish post in here and there. As that's not intentional, or has no evil intent.

Ok, I have a question about the 052D Destroyer's AAW capability. Well, I have read most of Jeff Head's writing about 052D and those were very informative and help me learn and then love this ship (thanks Jeff). The problem is, I still don't know about the 052D destroyer's AAW capability (and maybe not limited to 052D but AAW ships in general, AEGIS included).

So this ship is equipped with HHQ-9 and other missiles to protect herself. Ok, how good is an Anti Ship Warship capability to fight a low altitude fighter? For example, if it is being attacked by a group of fighter that flew at low altitude (just several hundred meter above the sea level) with missiles like KH-59 at hand? I'll be very grateful if someone can explain about the 052D to face this threat. But if not, using another AAW ship or AEGIS is also okay.

I'm not comparing the capability of KH-59 and the HHQ-9. Just want to know that if a AAW warship can protect herself against such threat. Thanks.

thanks.