F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 02:25

It would be simpler and less expensive to "dumb down" the actual CAD model that build one from scratch.

Remember too that the primary purpose of SDB2 is to attack high value targets that are moving or in bad whether. With the added electronics of a 3-way seeker, image & MWR processors, and a datalink, the size of the warhead when compared to the whole body is already small enough. If they make the warhead too specialized vs armored targets, it won't do enough damage to high value targets like bunkers, supply trucks, radar installations, small ships, etc.

Parting thought: Per the SDB2 cutaway it looks like it has two warheads. What else could that large brown (same color as the HEAT warhead) section in the rear be?

Nevermind.. likely it's just the battery for the datalink.
Last edited by SpudmanWP on 09 Oct 2015, 02:39, edited 1 time in total.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1361
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 02:36

count_to_10 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:No, they spend hundreds of dollars drawing up a CAD layout
That CAD layout took 40-60 man hours easy = $thousands.

Maybe. That doesn't really change the fact that it would be even more expensive if they tried to include a realistic model of the shaped charge. Nor would it make said models any less classified.


I disagree; I've had a coworker produce a CFD model of this airframe from scratch (measuring it with wire to create sections and then approximating curves to within ~1mm) in his free time over about 2 weeks. Here's his end result.

How complex to shape-charges get? If we're talking about something like this, the same guy could probably reproduce the cone / diamond in less than an hour.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 06:25

SpudmanWP wrote:It depends on the penetrator and how the HEAT warhead is designed.

the design of the HEAT warhead and the material that make the cone can change the penetration value, but wouldn't the ratio of RHA penetration vs steel-concrete penetration is still fixed ( penetrate 2-3 times better vs steel reinforced concrete)


SpudmanWP wrote:We can see here in the cutaway of the SDB2 that the warhead has a very shallow cone in it's warhead.

Image

Compare that to the cone in a Hellfire

Image

in my opinion the only reason it looks like that is because SDB 2 warhead is much bigger than AGM-114's warhead, because it doesn't need to carry fuel, and they have around similar size.
And since HEAT warheads penetration are mostly depending on the diameter, it quite unnecessary to make the cone longer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 06:38

Another interesting things is the super heavy Mark 8 AP round on battle ship, that weight 2700 lbs, travelling at Mach 2 have penetration value of 829 mm RHA at point blank
at 9 km, it can penetrate 664 mm RHA
at 38 km, it can penetrate about 357 mm RHA or 15-20 meters of concrete
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
it seems that AP round does alot better vs concrete than HEAT round, however the penetration value of modern weapons are rather impressive forexample : Hellfire can penetrate over 1000 mmRHA, RPG-28 can easily penetrate 700-800 mm RHA, easy to see why many tanks would want APS
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 07:32

HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges

"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1164
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 09:45

Gums wrote: The SBD and Hellfire need guidance all the way to impact.


Unless I miss understood you, just an update or correction. The current Hellfire II is a "fire and forget" system unlike the original Hellfire that needed constant laser designation. The newer versions of the Hellfire II has a dual seeker mode as it could use both laser designation and its own MMW radar seeker. I think the SDB can also be considered "fire and forget" as it uses its own self guidance systems.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 10:31

eloise wrote:Another interesting things is the super heavy Mark 8 AP round on battle ship, that weight 2700 lbs, travelling at Mach 2 have penetration value of 829 mm RHA at point blank
at 9 km, it can penetrate 664 mm RHA
at 38 km, it can penetrate about 357 mm RHA or 15-20 meters of concrete
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
it seems that AP round does alot better vs concrete than HEAT round, however the penetration value of modern weapons are rather impressive forexample : Hellfire can penetrate over 1000 mmRHA, RPG-28 can easily penetrate 700-800 mm RHA, easy to see why many tanks would want APS


The kind of modern weapons your talking about have much better penetration vs. armor, but they lack the massive force of such heavy shells so they only make small holes in things. Good for destroying tanks but not large spread out targets. In retaliation for the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Oct 1983 the Battleship New Jersey destroyed the HQ of the Syrian Army in Lebanon, killing their commanding general. They used 2,200 lbs. HE Rounds that do both massive kinetic and blast damage. It would have taken many more missiles or bombs to do the same job, at the risk of manned aircraft. The 2,700 lbs. AP shells your talking about would only be used against another Battleship, because they only have a very small powder charge.

Oddly Battleships became more dangerous to each other at longer ranges. In WWI it was discovered plunging fire hitting deck armor at a steep angle could penetrate the vital areas of a ship. Battleships were designed with what was known as "Immunity Zones". That was the range between where plunging fire would defeat deck armor, and direct fire would defeat side armor. The enemy was assumed to have the same caliber guns as the defending ship. In other words a 16" gun battleship was designed to defend against a 16" gun battleship.

In Nov, 1942 the USS Massachusetts hit the French Battleship Jean Bert from 13nm. Her 16"/45 guns firing the same 2,700 lbs AP shells your taking about penetrated 3 armored decks totaling 10.5" of armor. The round landed in an empty 6" magazine. If the magazine had been loaded the Jean Bert might have blown up like HMS Hood did in her battle with the Bismarck.

It would have been interesting if the navy had developed HEAT Rounds. Lesser ships might have been able to better fight over their weight. That is Cruisers vs. Battleships. As it was they took the route of making extra heavy shells. Other navies used 280 lbs. AP Shells while the U.S. used 335 pounders. Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 13:52

tincansailor wrote:Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.

I imagine they would have a charge pointed down to rip open the hull below the waterline.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 18:43

SpudmanWP wrote:HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges


Fair enough, long cone will result in higher penetration value, but wouldn't that work again both RHA and steel reinforced concrete ? thus the ratio stay the same?
btw what exactly the reason that give HEAT warheads such high penetration value compare to bullet of the same size?, i mean if the penetrating ability come from the speed of the copper that been propelled by explosive, then why do they have to make the cone shape?, wouldn't it be easier to design something like a SABOT round that explode when contact with target? and the explosion will propell the dart forward ?
Offline

kukemaim

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2015, 12:57

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 18:49

eloise wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:HEAT warhead penetration, when all else is the same, is greater when the angle is sharper.

If you want to do the math...

http://www.sv-jme.eu/data/upload/2012/0 ... maz_04.pdf

Amount of Pen
50° 306mm
60° 276mm

The longer the cone, the higher the velocity & mass of the jet.

Here is a good vid of Shaped charges


Fair enough, long cone will result in higher penetration value, but wouldn't that work again both RHA and steel reinforced concrete ? thus the ratio stay the same?
btw what exactly the reason that give HEAT warheads such high penetration value compare to bullet of the same size?, i mean if the penetrating ability come from the speed of the copper that been propelled by explosive, then why do they have to make the cone shape?, wouldn't it be easier to design something like a SABOT round that explode when contact with target? and the explosion will propell the dart forward ?

I'm guessing the reason for such penetration behind HEAT is heat? eh eh :D
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 18:57

In the simplest terms, the length of the cone is akin to the length of a gun barrel. The longer the cone, the higher & faster the mass of the jet.

btw, you cannot accelerate a "dart" without a barrel. Throw a cartridge into the fire and when it explodes, what exits the fire? It's the case, not the bullet.

Also, while a HEAT warhead may penetrate reinforced concrete bunkers, it will not do much damage once inside. The reason why you want the SDB to penetrate the bunker "prior" to it exploding is that you want that explosion "inside" the bunker. A HEAT warhead, by design, explodes outside the bunker and only causes a small amount of damage to the inside, assuming that it penetrates.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 19:11

SpudmanWP wrote:In the simplest terms, the length of the cone is akin to the length of a gun barrel. The longer the cone, the higher & faster the mass of the jet.

btw, you cannot accelerate a "dart" without a barrel. Throw a cartridge into the fire and when it explodes, what exits the fire? It's the case, not the bullet

i dont mean the whole Sabot round but just replaced the shape change liner with the dart part ( a small dart i mean ) , like in this picture
120mm_M830_HEAT-MP-T_T.jpg

iam struggle to understand how come the explosion can accelerate the copper cone but not the dart ?

SpudmanWP wrote:Also, while a HEAT warhead may penetrate reinforced concrete bunkers, it will not do much damage once inside. The reason why you want the SDB to penetrate the bunker "prior" to it exploding is that you want that explosion "inside" the bunker. A HEAT warhead, by design, explodes outside the bunker and only causes a small amount of damage to the inside, assuming that it penetrates.

i do aware of that , i just wondering how deep can something like Sabot , Heat warhead penetrated into steel reinforced concrete , and how deep can bunker buster bomb penetrated in pure RHA :mrgreen:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1797
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 19:21

Something else that also cause my attention is the EFP
Image
Image
in principle i dont see much different from a EFP and a bullet ,but a EFP can move much much much faster and also penetrate better than a bullet , the question is why ? , and i dont quite understand why they use a disk instead of a dard for EFP either :| ( sorry for my ignorance )
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 19:34

EFPs are fine for punching holes in armor, but they do not do much damage on the inside.

Tanks are disabled or get blown up because the HEAT, EFP, or sabot hits fuel, ammo, the engine, etc.

Bunkers/ships/cargo haulers/etc are different. You are not trying to disable it, but are trying to destroy everything in it.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post09 Oct 2015, 19:39

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
tincansailor wrote:Of course if the Age of Battleships had continued Anti-ship missiles would carry shape charge warheads.

I imagine they would have a charge pointed down to rip open the hull below the waterline.


Modern destroyers, and cruisers are much smaller then battleships. If you hit amid ships you have to pass through several steel decks before you reach the armored deck. The Iowa Class Battleships have an armored deck up to 7.5" thick. Then you have at least two splinter decks before you get too an engine space or magazine. The 460 lbs. blast fragmentation warhead on the Harpoon Missile would most likely detonate on the first few decks causing serious but not critical damage. Unspent missile fuel could cause serious fires like they did in the Falklands War, but the warhead couldn't penetrate the armored deck.

During the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands South Dakoda was hit on the roof of No2 main turret by a 500 lbs. bomb. Damage was negligible having no effect on operations, or causing any crew casualties. At Second Guadalcanal No2 Barbet was hit by a 14" AP Round from about 9,000 yards. It was dented but not pierced. She suffered numerous hits from 8" and 5" Shells causing heavy casualties above decks and in the Superstructure, but no damaged to critical protected systems.

Even older battleships designed in the 19 teens took many Kamikaze hits with minimal damage, being the least vulnerable ships in the fleet. Arizona blow up at Pearl Harbor after being hit by a 14" AP Shell not a bomb, dropped by a Val Dive Bomber. The Shell went through the Armored Deck just behind No2 Turret into the Forward 14" Magazine. The other 3 Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor were sunk by torpedoes.

Bismarck was reduced to a burning wreck unable to return fire before she was finished off by torpedoes, (The Germans say she only sank after being scuttled.) When she was found a few years ago they discovered her Main Armor Belt wasn't pierced. The Japanese Super Battleships Yamato & Musashi were both sunk by torpedoes, though bombs did heavy damage above deck. Their armored decks were up to 9" thick.

Battleships were most vulnerable to torpedoes, then shell fire form other Battleships, then bombs. Of course very heavy bombs could take out Battleships. The British destroyed Bismarck's sister ship Tirpitz with 2, 12,000 lbs, Tallboy Bombs. The Germans sank the modern Italian Battleship Roma with 2, 3,000 lbs. guided bombs. HMS Warspite was crippled by the same weapon. Like Roma the bomb passed through the whole ship exploding under the keel. The Light Cruiser USS Philadelphia amazingly survived a hit from the same kind of bomb.

So if you still had to deal with enemy Battleships I think the best way would be with missiles with shape charges, or very heavy AP Bombs over 2,000 lbs. Of course the best way would by a Submarine putting 4 torpedoes under her keel. Battleships are just tough nuts to crack.

It would be interesting to design a modern Battleship for the 21st Century. She'd have very different weapons, and armor then the leviathans of a 100 years ago. Rail Guns, Fiber Laser Beams, Spaced composite armor, electro reactive armor, carbon fiber armor. Many ideas suggest themselves. Well not to worry, Battleship fans can dream but like the Dinosaurs they can only come back in the movies.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests