US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Not as much. In this case as the LHD was in repair the Ship’s fire suppression systems were deactivated the crew was reduced.
but Col. Mitchell... it’s one thing to shoot at a mock up in the desert. Bomb a unmanned ship stripped of arms in an exercise, or have a fire burn in port with only partial crew and no active damage control.

A whole different ball game to do it with a ship under armed escort full damage control system at sea.
There two interesting point.
1. Kuznetsov had similar incident ,at similar stage . The US ship is write off, the Kuznetsov suffered superficial damage. Looks like there is same design philosophy difference in work.
2. It is true there was 80% less hands on ship, but I think we can agree the spark from welding is not a match 2-4 missile, with 3500 kg weight.


If we put ratio between the AShM and welding spark, vs insufficient manning & machine vs full capability the end result is still closer to grave than to a combat capable ship.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The decision on the LHD isn’t made yet.
the Fire on the Kuz was smaller and primarily the damage was to the Dry dock not the ship.
it’s likely not even caused by a spark. Rags are notorious for starting fires on their own.
next you are correct sir. Which is critical as the ship was loaded with fire hazards at the time. In operating conditions would have its compartments sealed. In port they are open. An ASM no matter the type doesn’t produce that kind of event it’s kinetic primarily and isolated by compartments.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
The decision on the LHD isn’t made yet.
the Fire on the Kuz was smaller and primarily the damage was to the Dry dock not the ship.
it’s likely not even caused by a spark. Rags are notorious for starting fires on their own.
next you are correct sir. Which is critical as the ship was loaded with fire hazards at the time. In operating conditions would have its compartments sealed. In port they are open. An ASM no matter the type doesn’t produce that kind of event it’s kinetic primarily and isolated by compartments.
Just to get a magnitude.

First , obvious incorrect data : the sink of dock happened in November of 2018, the fire on the Kuz happened at the December of 2019.

The incident took place this morning, while the big ship was dockside at the 35th Ship Repair Plant in Murmansk.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the fire broke out during “repair works in the first power unit” by workers of the Zvyozdochka Ship Repair Center. A large plume of black smoke was visible from the upper deck.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reports, “the cause of the fire was that the spark fell into the hold during welding, and the remains of fuel oil caught fire there.” The fire then spread to an area of 120 square meters. As of nine hours ago, the fire had reportedly spread to 600 meters, with the ship’s diesel fuel on fire.


The fire had largely been put out by mid-afternoon local time, with “open flames” doused. The extent of damage to the ship is unknown. The Russian Northern Fleet stated there were no weapons or ammunition onboard the carrier at the time of the incident.
So the fuel of the Kuz catch fire, it started to spread to 600 sqm, but they managed to put out it in 16 hours time.

The events similar ,the result doesn't.

Maybe the safety culture of the Russian workers higher than the USA counterparts, and they kept everything tidy and all fire door kept clear ?


Anyway, the supersonic AShM will make pasta strainer from the 30-40% of the internal volume of the ship.


Just calculate it , the transversal density of these ships is 700 kg/sqm average, most likely 2/3-half of this value is the typical thickness due to the mass concentration in engines ect.

so, it will be aprox 20 cm of armour that needs to be penetrated by the supersonic AShM.


It is easy job, the medium missiles, like Onyx could penetrate all USA ships in every direction, the warhead will detonate in the pre-defined dept, the airframe of the missile will create a conical shape like penetrated volume in the ship.


If you calculate the damage due to the overpressure of the warhead then the result will be similar devastating.
Most likely the open bulkhead doors not enough to simulate the damage.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Obviously different situation. And obviously an intentional ipuse of your well known and pointed to national politics.
The fire on the Bonhomme Richard was not a fuel fire. It was a class A fire. The primary fuel being cardboard boxes, drywall, plastic and wiring.
Pumping up comparison between apples and onions doesn’t work here. We don’t have full details of the fire on the Kuz or Bonhomme Richard but it seems like the situation there was about as different as could be. On the Kuz the fire started during welding when a spark fell into fuel residue. All indications were that they had the ships onboard fire suppression systems working.

What seems to have happened on the Bonhomme Richard, was a self ignition of material in the Lower vehicle storage bay of the bow with it closed up. Additionally the fire suppression Foam systems disabled for upgrade.
The Crew were unable to respond in time probably didn’t even know the extent of the fire when they did they would have had to respond with some other method of fire control. They probably tried with extinguishers but on opening the hatch They set off a fire back blast. Where in the debris that had been burning had already consumed all the local oxygen in the hold reaching High heat.
Whence the door to the hold was opened by a crew to respond. The sudden change in pressure rushed oxygen into the hold. Like blowing on embers this reignited the fire and released a back blast effect. It exploded out. The fire and debris spread likely into the main vehicle hold and well deck. where it caught other materials. the responsding fire crews caught in the back blast would have been hit with smoke inhalation and a vacuum sucking the air from them. They were forced back for aide as what they had on hand was far from enough.
Undermanned and lacking the superior foam system with crewmen now suffering the effects of increased smoke inhalation set to trying to fight the blaze with buckets extinguishers and what they could organize make shift. They were on the back foot. unable to close up more compartments the fire was well fed. Additional assets came to help but all from the outside fire houses from other ships, helicopters and fire trucks. The problems were inside the ship those outside With more materials Starting to combust the compartments wide open acted like billows. Feeding the fire. As it got hotter more material normally fire resistant to such a blaze type took. As it stayed burning it got hotter a cycle began. It spread up. Eventually aluminum failed and steel was getting weak. More and more the outside work was to keep the steel from buckling. The island’s sensitive electronics and open spaces funneled up more heat.

Anti ship missiles key killer is the kinetics effect. The Explosion doesn’t start much of a fire and debris like boxes, drywall and paper are secured or disposed of before she leaves port. the blast of the explosive warhead has a tendency to extinguish more than combust. Some would though fuel is the big threat like what happened on Enterprise.
In an attack the ship would be buttoned up. Fire suppression systems primed and crews able to respond in seconds. The rule is seven minutes if the fire isn’t out by then then it’s spreading. Even if the effects spread beyond one or two compartments the rest of the compartments are sealed. And with working suppression systems it’s very very different.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Quite interesting from the warontherocks : D


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
First the big question .
The Bonhomme Richard fire raises another question: How tough and survivable can a ship be in combat if it is burning out of control in port during peacetime?
Now, it is not that big issue, because on sea they can suppress any fire initiated by the ancient greek's fire arrow : D


First, while we don’t know exactly how this first started, we do know some things.
....
Given the low ratio of humans to cubic feet of ship, the chances that the fire had time to spread without being noticed were high.
But ,they realise that it is maybe not enough so get to the point about the missiles/torpedoes :
Secondly, while ships at sea are vulnerable to attack, it has always been thus.
....
Additionally, large, multi-purpose warships — like the rest of the Navy — spend the overwhelming majority of their service lives deterring combat, not engaging in it.
Every word is gold.

So, it is not really a problem if the ships will sink like a hammer due to a hit from an AShM, because they so dreadful looking no one wants to poke them.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
Obviously different situation. And obviously an intentional ipuse of your well known and pointed to national politics.
The fire on the Bonhomme Richard was not a fuel fire. It was a class A fire. The primary fuel being cardboard boxes, drywall, plastic and wiring.
Pumping up comparison between apples and onions doesn’t work here. We don’t have full details of the fire on the Kuz or Bonhomme Richard but it seems like the situation there was about as different as could be. On the Kuz the fire started during welding when a spark fell into fuel residue. All indications were that they had the ships onboard fire suppression systems working.
That was my point as well, probably the Russian safety culture is better / higher standard than the USA naval/shipyard one.

Of course then there is a question how the fire expanded from few sqm to 600, but yeah : )
Anti ship missiles key killer is the kinetics effect. The Explosion doesn’t start much of a fire and debris like boxes, drywall and paper are secured or disposed of before she leaves port. the blast of the explosive warhead has a tendency to extinguish more than combust. Some would though fuel is the big threat like what happened on Enterprise.
In an attack the ship would be buttoned up. Fire suppression systems primed and crews able to respond in seconds. The rule is seven minutes if the fire isn’t out by then then it’s spreading. Even if the effects spread beyond one or two compartments the rest of the compartments are sealed. And with working suppression systems it’s very very different.
Have you ever seen a metal on metal impact in darkness ?

Without any booster , from a relatively slow, 10 m/sec collision you can see sparkle fountains - of course in the darkness only.

With the help of chemistry the duration and number of sparkles can be increased dramatically, however I think it is not necessary if the impacting object speed is multiple of the sound of speed.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
Just to get a magnitude.

First , obvious incorrect data : the sink of dock happened in November of 2018, the fire on the Kuz happened at the December of 2019.



So the fuel of the Kuz catch fire, it started to spread to 600 sqm, but they managed to put out it in 16 hours time.

The events similar ,the result doesn't.

Maybe the safety culture of the Russian workers higher than the USA counterparts, and they kept everything tidy and all fire door kept clear ?


Anyway, the supersonic AShM will make pasta strainer from the 30-40% of the internal volume of the ship.


Just calculate it , the transversal density of these ships is 700 kg/sqm average, most likely 2/3-half of this value is the typical thickness due to the mass concentration in engines ect.

so, it will be aprox 20 cm of armour that needs to be penetrated by the supersonic AShM.


It is easy job, the medium missiles, like Onyx could penetrate all USA ships in every direction, the warhead will detonate in the pre-defined dept, the airframe of the missile will create a conical shape like penetrated volume in the ship.


If you calculate the damage due to the overpressure of the warhead then the result will be similar devastating.
Most likely the open bulkhead doors not enough to simulate the damage.
Indeed.

Supersonic antiship missiles work like a bazooka. The whole thing is intended to defeat spaced armor, e.g. bulkheads.

The fuse is that the bottom of the penetrator, which is a sharp armored shell. On impact, the fuse ignites from the bottom which will force the penetrator forward. The plume is shaped to concentrate the energy forward in a narrow cone. The short phrase for it is a shaped charge. The antiship missile is essentially a giant antitank missile.

ONIKS_160223_01.jpgKh-41-Moskit-Sunburn-Cutaway-3BB.png
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
That was my point as well, probably the Russian safety culture is better / higher standard than the USA naval/shipyard one
Your point was to indicate your typical bias. I am well aware of.
I mean how many accidents has the Kuz had now? I mean there was the fire what covered 600 meters on her to.
Before that the Dry dock and the other fire from 2009 pardon me if I got confused on the individual incidents.
Or the Kilo submarine fires in Vladivostok... The Lohshairk Fire.
But safety culture... like the times a Soyuz was discovered to have a hole drilled in it? That safety culture? The Kursk? Chernobyl?
Indeed.

Supersonic antiship missiles work like a bazooka. The whole thing is intended to defeat spaced armor, e.g. bulkheads.

The fuse is that the bottom of the penetrator, which is a sharp armored shell. On impact, the fuse ignites from the bottom which will force the penetrator forward. The plume is shaped to concentrate the energy forward in a narrow cone. The short phrase for it is a shaped charge. The antiship missile is essentially a giant antitank missile.

View attachment 61857View attachment 61858
The most likely point off attack for such would be from the broadside above the waterline. This as as it would have the best chance of hitting. From one side to the other not length wise. As that would give the least area. And not top down as that would be a ballistic trajectory. Not below the waterline as to do so it would have to make contact with the sea. Like all high velocity objects when impacting a Newtonian fluid it would be destroyed instantly by its own velocity.
from side to side the detonation as described would impact one layer of compartment not beyond that. the description you gave @Tam is correct but fails in one aspect Shaped charge warheads are defused by spaced armor.
As far back as the Russians vs German tanks the simple addition of an additional slab of metal renders the charge effect reduced. The charge only works to a fixed distance. This is why Strykers and light armored vehicles often sport cage armor when facing off against RPG type threats. It can catch the grenade or worst case set it off feet away from the vehicle. The effect is dissipated harmlessly.
the Bahmos Missile warhead is often classed as Semi armor Piercing not armor piercing. The aim of the Kh41 was to try and detonate inside the ship not outside. And use as big a warhead as possible to do as much damage as possible but it’s not an instant kill unless you have the nuclear warhead. A nuke inside or outside any ship is pretty much instantly done. Along with its escorts.
 

Tam

Major
Registered Member
Your point was to indicate your typical bias. I am well aware of.
I mean how many accidents has the Kuz had now? I mean there was the fire what covered 600 meters on her to.
Before that the Dry dock and the other fire from 2009 pardon me if I got confused on the individual incidents.
Or the Kilo submarine fires in Vladivostok... The Lohshairk Fire.
But safety culture... like the times a Soyuz was discovered to have a hole drilled in it? That safety culture? The Kursk? Chernobyl?

The most likely point off attack for such would be from the broadside above the waterline. This as as it would have the best chance of hitting. From one side to the other not length wise. As that would give the least area. And not top down as that would be a ballistic trajectory. Not below the waterline as to do so it would have to make contact with the sea. Like all high velocity objects when impacting a Newtonian fluid it would be destroyed instantly by its own velocity.
Everyone knows that the missile will home in broadside. That is why for so long, ECM units are placed nearest the spot where it is anticipated the antiship missile will come in, so the ECM unit is in the best position.

Actually, the missile will simply home in on the spot of the greatest radar return because of monostatic active radar guidance seeker. That spot is usually the broadside, and where the water meets, creates a nice corner for a good radar return, but if the missile is coming fore or aft, that's going to depend on the ship's architecture where it would give off the greatest radar bounce. In short, look for a good place that has a 90 degree angle that makes up a corner for a concentrated radar bounce.

from side to side the detonation as described would impact one layer of compartment not beyond that. the description you gave @Tam is correct but fails in one aspect Shaped charge warheads are defused by spaced armor.
As far back as the Russians vs German tanks the simple addition of an additional slab of metal renders the charge effect reduced. The charge only works to a fixed distance. This is why Strykers and light armored vehicles often sport cage armor when facing off against RPG type threats. It can catch the grenade or worst case set it off feet away from the vehicle. The effect is dissipated harmlessly.
the Bahmos Missile warhead is often classed as Semi armor Piercing not armor piercing. The aim of the Kh41 was to try and detonate inside the ship not outside. And use as big a warhead as possible to do as much damage as possible but it’s not an instant kill unless you have the nuclear warhead. A nuke inside or outside any ship is pretty much instantly done. Along with its escorts.
The counter to spaced armor is inertial fuses not impact fuses, and missile uses inertia fuses. With shaped charges using impact fuses, spaced armor would cause the charge to detonate before it penetrates the armor, causing it to deflect away. With an inertial fuse the impact itself would not cause the warhead to explode until the missile hits sufficient resistance to cause it to stop, and force such a change in inertia that the inertial fuse would ignite. It means, it would need to hit something really to stop it before it would detonate.

Case in point was an ugly accident that happened a few years ago when a supersonic Hsiung Feng III missile (Taiwan) was fired and mistakenly hit a trawler. The missile literally blew through the vessel, killing the poor captain, but did not explode sparing the ship and the crew as it came out of the other end.
 

Top