Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:12 am

    Peŕrier wrote:It is prevented by several constraints:

    Missile radars have decent/good resolution only at short distances, when little time and space is left to manoeuvre.

    Countermeasures and decoys will likely degrade the target recognition in turn giving the incoming missile only a broad image of the target.

    The target itself is not a static one, it manouvres and a warship is incredibly agile when needed, so the missile can't really choose the point of impact, at most can choose  height of point of impact above the waterline.

    The target will NEVER stay passive against an incoming missile, so nobody could plan in advance where the impact should happen.

    And even if already remarked,  it could be useful to repeat that reactors, weapons depots, fuel tanks in a carrier are all placed under the waterline, so no missile will likely reach them.

    Naval engineers are always studying, day by day, the best ways to counter threats, and any new ship's class adopt new ideas and technology to mitigate or nullify opponents weapons' letality.

    It is enough to actually hit the enemy, the real option is if aiming to the hull or the superstructure, not if hitting left or right size, one third from the stern or halfway from aft and stern.

    Agree, the only way for a ship to defend itself from the onyx/granit/zircon/brahmos is to use countermeasures, and fool the sensors of the missiles.

    The air defence systems has to use up asymmetrically high amount of resources to have slightest chance to destroy them.

    Peŕrier wrote:
    And even if already remarked,  it could be useful to repeat that reactors, weapons depots, fuel tanks in a carrier are all placed under the waterline, so no missile will likely reach them.

    Doesn't matter, actually the incoming missiles will be 1-2 match faster if it drop down from bellow.
    It is a classical game theory example.
    You have X amount of missiles, the enemy has different defeating chances for every trajectories, and each trajectories carry different damage inflecting capabilities.

    Means say sea skimming trajectory have 35% chance of intercept, semi ballistic trajectory say 70%, so the ballistic has to inflict twice as much damage to use.

    and generally, on a ship NOT only the fuel and ammunition is the only thing that is flammable.
    Actuary, if the temperature high enough then even the sailors will burn light a torch. And the metal walls . And the equipment.The engine oil. Everything.


    There was transport accident, when the break fluid burned out a funicular train .Not only a bit, but completely.
    Again, the result on this picture was caused only by the break fluid in the systems of this train and the excess heat :
    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 K31


    Last edited by Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:15 am

    hoom wrote:
    Armour piercing round of the granit.
    Wow  Shocked
    Never actually seen that before, heard rumors but also counter-rumors doubting the existence.

    May be better to call it a semi-AP but is definitely very much more a piercing warhead than normal.
    Some anti-ship missiles do use shaped charges apparently & even multiple self-forging penetrators.

    The Fizgerald had a hit from a container ship,and become disabled/ and was close to sink. Compared to the onyx the container ship has small energy and damage inflicting capability.
    Not strictly true, the kinetic energy of a 30,000ton freighter at 18kt is really really big: 252,000,000 kg m/s vs only 933,450 kg m/s for a US superheavy 16" at muzzle velocity.

    Nevertheless both the 2 recent freighter hits & the older Cole bombing seem to me to have caused a lot more severe damage (to ships that are supposedly better protected than previous post-WWII generations) than I'd have expected.


    This whole conversation stems back to the question of if a modernised Kirov is a valid ship.
    I say yes: modernised Nakhimov will be unquestionably the most powerful surface combatant ever, with both massive anti-surface & air-defense capability, it will create a very strong core to Russian taskforces.

    I am also sympathetic to the small missile boat argument but tempered by the similarity of that argument to the Jeune Ecole argument that Torpedo Boats invalidate BBs & Cruisers and the fact there is an existing combat record for missile boats.
    In both cases (torpedo boats and missile boats) historic combat examples have shown both some very successful operations & some severe limitations/shortcomings proving that it can't be relied on solely.

    I like that Russia is building good missile boats but also modernising the two Kirovs.
    Eventually hopefully there will be a decent number of Frigates that can both provide backbone to missile boat swarms & be the swarm around a Kirov core.


    You calculated the impulse, not the kinetic energy.(liner vs square)

    The container ship had twice as much overall kinetic energy than an onyx, but the actual speed of it just decreased slightly ,so the energy that was transferred into the fitzgerald was fraction of the energy of an impacting onyx.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 570
    Points : 610
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:28 am

    Would someone be so kind as to move this to a topic about the effectiveness of naval missiles.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 231
    Points : 227
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Azi on Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:32 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:You calculated the impulse, not the kinetic energy.(liner vs square)

    The container ship had twice as much overall kinetic energy than an onyx, but the actual speed of it just decreased slightly ,so the energy that was transferred into the fitzgerald was fraction of the energy of an impacting onyx.
    I was curious about the example...so I calculated a bit...

    The impact of the Onyx missile and the crash of the freighter (estimation 30 km/h both at crash and weight from example) have nearly the same energy! If the speed of both ships would be higher at impact (I doubt!) the kinetic energy of the ship crash would be significant higher.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 231
    Points : 227
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Azi on Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:05 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:Doesn't matter, actually the incoming missiles will be 1-2 match faster if it drop down from bellow.
    It is a classical game theory example.
    You have X amount of missiles, the enemy has different defeating chances for every trajectories, and each trajectories carry different damage inflecting capabilities.

    Means say sea skimming trajectory have 35% chance of intercept, semi ballistic trajectory say 70%, so the ballistic has to inflict twice as much damage to use.

    and generally, on a ship NOT only the fuel and ammunition is the only thing that is flammable.
    Actuary, if the temperature high enough then even the sailors will burn light a torch. And the metal walls . And the equipment.The engine oil. Everything.


    There was transport accident, when the break fluid burned out a funicular train .Not only a bit, but completely.
    Again, the result on this picture was caused only by the break fluid in the systems of this train and the excess heat :
    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 K31
    There is only one way to threat sectors under waterline, it's the attack from above. Some missiles have the attack mode.

    If a sea skimming missile would try to dive...you must imagine the water will be hard as concrete for any fast missile and the missile never will make a long distance under water. Other way is using anti sub missiles, there are combined torpedo and missile.

    I remember your fire disaster example, it was in Alps many years ago. It was so disastrous because of the chimney effect! Fresh air from the below end of the tunnel climbed up and was delivering oxygen to a small fire and that escaleted quickly. Fuel burns at specific temperature and not higher, if the supply with oxygen is good. With less oxygen...incomplete combustion. Without oxygen no fire!!! A modern warship is divided into sectors and the sectors are divided into smaller parts. The bulkheads are not made of paper, they consist of steel and are able to withstand incoming water, small explosions, fire etc...

    Old WW2 ships there made to withstand shells from other warships and bomb attacks from light bombers. With creation of anti ship missile it was complete useless to create ocean going "tanks" (normally with the creation of topedos big hulls
    were actually superfluous). First defence are long or medium range AD missiles, after that short range missiles and EW countermeasure, last line of defense is CIWS (by the way very effective!). But what if everything failed and the missiles hits? Modern warships are multilayered...vital components are deep inside and at best under the waterline. The main energy of the explosion goes the way of smallest resistance, through the entrance hole! But explosion energy of an anti ship missile is enough to annihilate a smaller ship, like a corvette.

    And of course a anti ship missile can hit seriously a big ship, causing a mission kill or maybe sinking the ship. Everything possible. But Zirkon, Onyx and Co. will not go 20 m or more through a ship, in worst case they are outside the ship X-D *LOL* or the warhead is too damaged. Onyx and Zirkon will work very similar and explode short after penetrating the hull. And of course Onyx goes deeper than Harpoon, because Onyx was build for this. But Harpoon mostly penetrates the hull, if the angle is correct, same for Onyx and Co.

    And another point...
    Please all don't think that a anti ship missile will always hit, have always the perfect angle of attack and so on...

    By the way...
    Soviet Navy was leading ALWAYS in anti ship missile technology and now Russia is!!! That's a fact! LRASM is just a project in testing stadium and the good OLD Harpoon (ok, it's modernized variants) is now state of the art for US Navy. pwnd


    Last edited by Azi on Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 231
    Points : 227
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Azi on Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:13 pm

    Before speculating about missiles, small ships and big ships...

    There is a way for a lot information. The "Iran - Iraq War" from 1980 to 1988. They used everything they had, a US Navy frigate was hit by two Exocet and despite heavy damage not sunk. Many Harpoons were used. A lot of other stuff happened during the time.

    Operation Praying Mantis - wikipedia

    Falkland War is another example for modern naval warfare.

    Conclusion...
    Not every missile hits! Countermeasures and AD systems works (sometimes)! Not every hit will sink the ship! But sometimes a hit can sink the ship! cheers
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:40 pm

    Azi wrote:
    There is only one way to threat sectors under waterline, it's the attack from above. Some missiles have the attack mode.

    If a sea skimming missile would try to dive...you must imagine the water will be hard as concrete for any fast missile and the missile never will make a long distance under water. Other way is using anti sub missiles, there are combined torpedo and missile.

    I remember your fire disaster example, it was in Alps many years ago. It was so disastrous because of the chimney effect! Fresh air from the below end of the tunnel climbed up and was delivering oxygen to a small fire and that escaleted quickly. Fuel burns at specific temperature and not higher, if the supply with oxygen is good. With less oxygen...incomplete combustion. Without oxygen no fire!!! A modern warship is divided into sectors and the sectors are divided into smaller parts. The bulkheads are not made of paper, they consist of steel and are able to withstand incoming water, small explosions, fire etc...

    Old WW2 ships there made to withstand shells from other warships and bomb attacks from light bombers. With creation of anti ship missile it was complete useless to create ocean going "tanks" (normally with the creation of topedos big hulls
    were actually superfluous). First defence are long or medium range AD missiles, after that short range missiles and EW countermeasure, last line of defense is CIWS (by the way very effective!). But what if everything failed and the missiles hits? Modern warships are multilayered...vital components are deep inside and at best under the waterline. The main energy of the explosion goes the way of smallest resistance, through the entrance hole! But explosion energy of an anti ship missile is enough to annihilate a smaller ship, like a corvette.

    And of course a anti ship missile can hit seriously a big ship, causing a mission kill or maybe sinking the ship. Everything possible. But Zirkon, Onyx and Co. will not go 20 m or more through a ship, in worst case they are outside the ship X-D *LOL* or the warhead is too damaged. Onyx and Zirkon will work very similar and explode short after penetrating the hull. And of course Onyx goes deeper than Harpoon, because Onyx was build for this. But Harpoon mostly penetrates the hull, if the angle is correct, same for Onyx and Co.

    And another point...
    Please all don't think that a anti ship missile will always hit, have always the perfect angle of attack and so on...

    By the way...
    Soviet Navy was leading ALWAYS in anti ship missile technology and now Russia is!!! That's a fact! LRASM is just a project in testing stadium and the good OLD Harpoon (ok, it's modernized variants) is now state of the art for US Navy. pwnd

    The anti ship missile doesn't need to go sea skimming trajectory.

    If it choose a high trajectory, and dive down on a semi ballistic one that can be effective as well.

    The onyx/granit/brahmos has variable air intake, means they can fly any altitude by any speed.

    I think the bulkheads are one of the reason why these missiles has so high speed.
    They can penetrate with one hit many bulkhead.

    Practically they can fly along the main axis of a destroyer , puncture many section.

    An if the blast happens just under the skin then the best part of energy will go outside.
    But if the warhead penetrate many bulkhead then the explosion damage will be absorbed by the ship structure.
    It can be debated how the damage profile looks like, but I think we can assume that it will be devastating.


    The missile open up way to the air, to the fire .
    Actually, the closed box like structures in the ship are quite favourable to fire, the steel walls reflect back the IR waves to the ignited material.

    If there is any entry for air then it will burn nicely.


    Actually, I checked the ford cross section, and it looks like this:



    As a matter of fact, the Kirov doewn't look stronger.




    The internal metal plates looks 20 mm thick.
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 231
    Points : 227
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Azi on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:52 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    The anti ship missile doesn't need to go sea skimming trajectory.

    If it choose a high trajectory, and dive down on a semi ballistic one that can be effective as well.
    Like I wrote before. Sea skimming ist best to avoid AD systems, but for max. efficiency "attack from above" is best.

    In advertising videos the hit and boom of ASM looks quite impressive, but in reality not every missile will hit, or hit a vital section or from right angle. So it's important to direct the attack...correct information, good radar and/or satellite photos, a bit time...that the missile could fly the perfect course.

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    The onyx/granit/brahmos has variable air intake, means they can fly any altitude by any speed.
    Of course Wink

    Singular_Transform wrote:I think the bulkheads are one of the reason why these missiles has so high speed.
    They can penetrate with one hit many bulkhead.
    No! They explode same way like older ASM or like western counterparts. Yes, they have higher kinetic energy, but they don't really need it. They are fast to be troublesome for enemy AD Systems.

    The hardened warhead is not only for penetrating the hull, it's against AD missiles and against CIWS also useful. It's a higher chance that the missile will reach intact the ship.


    Singular_Transform wrote:Practically they can fly along the main axis of a destroyer , puncture many section.
    Yes and NO! The missile is not smart, it has no AI onboard. The missile doesn't know if it hits the ship from side or length. So theoretical a Zirkon could fly 100 or more meters through a carrier, but leave only one small hole (of course destroying the warhead...simply everything of the missile). But hitting from side??? If a Zirkon would explode after 40 meters of penetrating it would be outside of the ship again, causing a big boom only in the air and not in the ship ;D So Zirkon, Onyx, Harpoon, LRASM and Co. will all explode a few meters after penetrating the hull.

    Other situation is if the hypersonic cruise missile will be smart, knowing from where it attacks. But this is music of far future.

    Singular_Transform wrote:An if the blast happens just under the skin then the best part of energy will go outside.
    But if the warhead penetrate many bulkhead then the explosion damage will be absorbed by the ship structure.
    It can be debated how the damage profile looks like, but I think we can assume that it will be devastating.
    Much of energy goes oustide, but the blast is enough for a whole section Wink Believe me! Smaller ships like corvette will be complete ripped off, bigger ships have higher chance of survivability.


    Singular_Transform wrote:The missile open up way to the air, to the fire .
    Actually, the closed box like structures in the ship are quite favourable to fire, the steel walls reflect back the IR waves to the ignited material.

    If there is any entry for air then it will burn nicely.
    Some ships burned good after a small hit, some never really burned but after few hard hits. Depends on the hit...

    Singular_Transform wrote:The internal metal plates looks 20 mm thick.
    For me it looks a bit more, than 20 mm. If you zoom in the first photo you will see how thick the plates are, dimensions here are gigantic
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:26 pm

    Azi wrote:
    Yes and NO! The missile is not smart, it has no AI onboard. The missile doesn't know if it hits the ship from side or length. So theoretical a Zirkon could fly 100 or more meters through a carrier, but leave only one small hole (of course destroying the warhead...simply everything of the missile). But hitting from side??? If a Zirkon would explode after 40 meters of penetrating it would be outside of the ship again, causing a big boom only in the air and not in the ship ;D So Zirkon, Onyx, Harpoon, LRASM and Co. will all explode a few meters after penetrating the hull.

    Other situation is if the hypersonic cruise missile will be smart, knowing from where it attacks. But this is music of far future.


    Much of energy goes oustide, but the blast is enough for a whole section Wink Believe me! Smaller ships like corvette will be complete ripped off, bigger ships have higher chance of survivability.



    The whole granit/oscar/heavy subs and ships ( like the kirov ) was bigger project in the SU than the Apollo program in the US.
    I don't know the capability of them,, but they put waaaay more engineering resources into them than say into to Saturn-V rocket.

    Impact - The target of the engineers visible - the whole missile design means that it hit a small hole, but leave a big on the opposite side.

    The fuzing, trajectory, sensors, hit probability, warhead design organised around this.


    And of course the smaller ships can take less hit than a big one
    The main point in the discussion is two point:
    1. what is the damage capability ratio between the harpoon/sea tomahawk/granit/onyx/zircon
    2. How many missile needed to destroy one ship?

    I think the data supports quite well that one onyx can cause as much damage as several (2-4) sea tomahawk.
    Next question is how many tomahawk needed to sink a carrier or a destroyer.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:47 am

    The speed of the Granit was to defeat air defences by penetrating them quickly limiting their reaction time.

    The assumption was that with carrier support and full AWACS support any incoming missile will be detected very early on so a subsonic low flying cruise missile will be detected very early and intercepted well before it got anywhere near the fleet.

    The solution was very fast low flying missiles and very fast high flying missiles.

    The armour on the Granits warhead has nothing to do with penetrating a ship as most modern ships have no armour at all that would stop a multi ton supersonic missile.

    The energy comparisons between a cargo ship and an Onyx are pointless... a person running into you on the playground of a school would have the same energy as a rifle bullet but one will kill you and one will not because the energy is concentrated in different ways. A train weighing thousands of tons moving a 5km/h will bump you aside, while a 5 gramme projectile moving at 300m/s can kill you easily yet it would have a fraction of the energy of the train.

    The armour on the Granit is to render any lucky hit by Goalkeeper or Phalanx ineffective in detonating the warhead before it hits the ship.

    If you don't think speed has any effect look at the image signature of my fellow countryman Ominous Squid.

    Comparing a 7 ton missile with a 950kg warhead hitting a ship faster than many rifle bullets are moving at 500m, with Harpoon or Exocet is amusing.... the big fast Soviet missiles were designed to cripple an aircraft carrier... do you think they got that horribly wrong?

    With hypersonic missiles the damage will be increased even further.

    Also AFAIK the Kh-22M had a shaped charge warhead designed to blow an enormous hole in the side of a ship and in sea skimming mode was designed to hit the water 20m in front of the ship and make that hole half above and half below the waterline...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3564
    Points : 3556
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Isos on Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:55 am

    The fire produced by a Granit would be much bigger than one created by an exocet. The fire will make the structure weak and it will be fatal to it.

    A carrier is 100 kt, imagine now that you burn one of the parts that "hold" the ship. It is like making a big hole in on of the wall that hold your house, the house will be destroyed the same way as will be your ship.

    This is the missiles used by houtis. Look at the warehead, it is meant to make a big explosion and to make (HEAT) big hole that will burn everything where they go. Most of antiship wareheads are like that so that even if you have a lot of compartiments, it will go through and start fires everywhere. Those HEAT parts are far bigger than those on Kornet missiles whichis already capable of >1m penetration. You won't stop it with 20mm of armour.


    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Sans-t10

    Now look at the Nimitz and see how there is stock of everything everywhere on the ship.

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Uss-ni10
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The energy comparisons between a cargo ship and an Onyx are pointless... a person running into you on the playground of a school would have the same energy as a rifle bullet but one will kill you and one will not because the energy is concentrated in different ways. A train weighing thousands of tons moving a 5km/h will bump you aside, while a 5 gramme projectile moving at 300m/s can kill you easily yet it would have a fraction of the energy of the train.

    The oposite is true, if a slow moving hockey puck can cause serious injuries, then a 2 gram 0.22 projectile having the same energy can cause death.


    so, if a slow moving container ship can cripple a destroyer then a fast moving missile with the same amount of kinetic energy can kill it.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:51 am

    Azi wrote:
    Yes and NO! The missile is not smart, it has no AI onboard. The missile doesn't know if it hits the ship from side or length. So theoretical a Zirkon could fly 100 or more meters through a carrier, but leave only one small hole (of course destroying the warhead...simply everything of the missile). But hitting from side??? If a Zirkon would explode after 40 meters of penetrating it would be outside of the ship again, causing a big boom only in the air and not in the ship ;D So Zirkon, Onyx, Harpoon, LRASM and Co. will all explode a few meters after penetrating the hull.


    Not sure what is "being smart" and AI for missile for you but  her e AI here is not rally used to build optimal strategy of attack. To few resources too little time. No need too. It can be used to adjust situational awareness'  parameters  but nothing more. Besides even  current missiles like  Kh-35 flying in packs share and  prioritize ships which to attack, based on their profiles.  Consider it as rule base systems with finite number of predefined attack possibilities against different carrier groupings'  configurations.




    Other situation is if the hypersonic cruise missile will be smart, knowing from where it attacks. But this is music of far future.


    This is not bout being smart but also having sensors allowing you to classify ships. Optical/radar/ whatever Smile  Hypersonic might have problems with getting thru plasma around missile but I am sure they will find workaround that...

    Azi wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:An if the blast happens just under the skin then the best part of energy will go outside.
    But if the warhead penetrate many bulkhead then the explosion damage will be absorbed by the ship structure.
    It can be debated how the damage profile looks like, but I think we can assume that it will be devastating.
    Much of energy goes oustide, but the blast is enough for a whole section Wink Believe me! Smaller ships like corvette will be complete ripped off, bigger ships have higher chance of survivability.


    if you check energy equivalent with something like 3km/s + no need to add chemical explosives. Mass carries as much energy. The problem here would be about energy transferring from missile parts to ship.

    Zircon was recorded like 8 Ma right? it is close to magical 3000km/s.... mybe newer versions with Ma 10-12 would not need any HE warheads?


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21096
    Points : 21644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:38 am

    The oposite is true, if a slow moving hockey puck can cause serious injuries, then a 2 gram 0.22 projectile having the same energy can cause death.


    so, if a slow moving container ship can cripple a destroyer then a fast moving missile with the same amount of kinetic energy can kill it.

    I am a hunter and I know for a fact that shooting an animal in a non vital area will not be lethal.

    Energy calculations are always skewed by velocity and make fast moving things more energetic.

    At the end of the day a small very fast bullet going through the heart or brain of an animal is no more or less lethal than a very heavy very fast bullet doing the same thing.

    There are too many variables... is the hit in the middle going sideways through, or will you hit one end and have it penetrate the length of the ship... low speed missiles like Exocet or Harpoon wont penetrate the entire length of a carrier whereas hitting sideways a Granit might over penetrate.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4382
    Points : 4497
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  kvs on Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:40 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    The energy comparisons between a cargo ship and an Onyx are pointless... a person running into you on the playground of a school would have the same energy as a rifle bullet but one will kill you and one will not because the energy is concentrated in different ways. A train weighing thousands of tons moving a 5km/h will bump you aside, while a 5 gramme projectile moving at 300m/s can kill you easily yet it would have a fraction of the energy of the train.

    The oposite is true, if a slow moving hockey puck can cause serious injuries, then a 2 gram 0.22 projectile having the same energy can cause death.


    so, if a slow moving container ship can cripple a destroyer then a fast moving missile with the same amount of kinetic energy can kill it.

    Take it easy, dude. "Total opposite" is utter rubbish. As noted already, the concentration of the energy is everything. That is why
    you cut with a sharp knife and not a 4x4 beam of wood. The diameter, and hence impact area, of any missile impacting a ship is vastly
    smaller than the contact created by another ship crashing.

    The energy per surface area unit falls off as the square of the mean radius. So a collision with another ship causes the limited damage you
    see in such cases. A missile with a similar energy of impact would shred through any ship floating today. If somehow the "freighter" was
    designed with a knife-like, thin and strong bow edge it would split the ship it impacts and sink it. But freighters are not built this way and
    the contact point leads to crumpling and spreading that maximizes the contact area.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_ram
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:08 pm

    kvs wrote:

    Take it easy, dude.   "Total opposite" is utter rubbish.    As noted already, the concentration of the energy is everything.   That is why
    you cut with a sharp knife and not a 4x4 beam of wood.    The diameter, and hence impact area, of any missile impacting a ship is vastly
    smaller than the contact created by another ship crashing.



    Actually, as I reread everything I see that everyone talk abut the same thing.
    I'm sorry, it was my misreading. : )

    Sponsored content

    Εffectiveness of naval missiles - Page 3 Empty Re: Εffectiveness of naval missiles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:17 pm