F-35 tank killing capablity against T-14 Armata

[SpudmanWP]

The disk is too small of a ratio when compared to the length of the sabot. Make the disk too thin and it warps, too thick and it adds too much mass.

IT... CAN... NOT... BE... DONE...

[count_to_10]

The reason that an EFP is a flat disk is so that the explosive force can easily impart its energy in a controlled manner.

You cannot do that with a sabot, as just a minute change in center of force will cause it to spin out of control. The rear surface area of a sabot is just too small.

Different mechanisms. The sabot dart is fired out of a gun barrel over the course of tens of milliseconds, propelled by gun powder (mostly nitrocellulose), and the mass of the sabot is effectively wasted, as it does not contribute to penetration. An EFP is accelerated by the shock of a detonating explosive over the course of a microsecond or so, and just about all of the mass of the EFP (which is often copper, but can be something more dense) contributes to penetration. Both typically have a velocity somewhat less 2 km/s, but the sabot dart can fly much farther and penetrate deeper, while the EFP is all together more compact and can be / has to be fired from a warhead.

[Gums]

Salute!

Sorry, "tater" ( aka Spuds), but I go with Charlie about internal damage in the tanks by pure kinetic warheads. Go see a real T-72 turret with a few 30mm GAU-8 holes in both sides. That DU core and other stuff surely flew around inside and made things tough for the crew, ya think? However, I would still take the Maverick warhead ( just to make sure, heh heh. That thing is huge.).

I also recant part of my statement about the launch and leave capabilities of the SDB and new Hellfire. Seems a few SDB have a true launch and leave capability ( maybe 20% and where are they deployed and what are future plans?), and only the latest Hellfires have it ( not sure if the Marine AH-1S+ can use the MMW seeker versions. I worked on the upgrade for that helo right after Desert Storm to develop a better armament system. The crews wanted the 4-blade rotor more than new avionics and got their way back then. New Super Cobras have much more updated vionice.) Niether autonomous SBD or Hellfire MMW ready for prime time in a CAS situation, IMHO, but good for BAI and a coordinated strikes way back in "Injun Country". Suckers could also be really nice versus small ships and such.

My point is I felt lots more comfortable if I knew the missile was locked on to the target before I hit the pickle button. In the Viper we had both the chirp and the diamond symbol in the TD box, so the sucker was locked and tracking. Shoot, get lock on the wingie and rinse, repeat. Slammer employment easier and more targets to kill from 15 or 20 miles out. Only other scenario would be if I could see the missile seeker lock on after I launched and was 20 miles away.

Gums opines.....

[eloise]

The disk is too small of a ratio when compared to the length of the sabot. Make the disk too thin and it warps, too thick and it adds too much mass.

IT... CAN... NOT... BE... DONE...

I recently saw this
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... charge.htm
seem like it have to do with some thing called Monroe Effect

Hydrodynamic penetration is a complex mechanism which begins to appear when the strike velocity exceeds a critical value, typically about 1,150m/s for current penetrators against rolled homogenous armor (RHA) targets. Full hydrodynamic behavior does not occur until the strike velocity reaches several kilometers per second, such as occurs with shaped charge munitions. At strike velocities less than about 1,150m/s penetration of metal armor occurs mainly through the mechanism of plastic deformation. A typical penetrator achieves a strike velocity around 1,500m/s to 1,700m/s, depending on range, and therefore target effects generally exhibit both hydrodynamic behaviour and plastic deformation.

A number of models of varying degrees of complexity have been developed to predict long rod penetrator performance. A common feature that emerges from these models is the importance of a high strike velocity to exploit more fully the hydrodynamic penetration mechanism, which, in turn, is further improved by the use of longer penetrators having higher densities relative to the target material density. This is amply supported by experimental work.

Shaped charge is indeed an extraordinary phenomenon that is beyond the scale of normal physics, which explains why its fundamental theoretical mechanism is by no means fully understood.

The shaped charge jet tip reaches 10 kms-l some 40 µs after detonation, giving a cone tip acceleration of about 25 million g. At this acceleration the tip would reach the speed of light, were this possible, in around 1.5 seconds. But of course, it reaches a terminal velocity after only 40 millionths of a second. It is difficult to think of any other terrestrial event as fast as a shaped charge jet tip. The jet tail has a velocity of 2-5 kms-l and so the jet stretches out to a length of about 8 cone diameters (CDs) before particulation occurs. The stretching occurs at a high strain rate, requiring the cone material to have excellent dynamic ductility at temperatures up to about 450°C. On reaching a target, the pressure developed between the jet tip and the forming crater can be as high as 10 Mbar (10 million atmospheres), several times the highest pressure predicted in the Earth's core.

It is universally agreed that conical liner collapse and target penetration both occur by hydrodynamic flow. However, it has been established by X-ray diffraction that the jet is solid metal and not molten. Additionally, best estimates of jet temperature by incandescence colour suggest a mean value of about 450°C, and copper melts at 1083°C at atmospheric pressure. So the following conundrum is the first confusion: The jet appears to behave like a fluid, and yet it is known to be a solid. One recent theory that would help explain this is that the jet has a molten core but with a solid outer sheath.

The hypervelocity hydrodynamic impact (unlike lower speed KE penetration) results in a mushroom head penetration, such that the hole diameter is larger than the penetrator diameter. The dynamic compressive yield stress of the target is exceeded by a factor of at least one thousand times, so that only the densities of the target and jet materials are important. Both materials flow as if they were fluids and the penetration event can be modelled quite accurately using the Bernoulli equation for incompressible flow to give the well known hydrodynamic penetration equation.

[eloise]

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.

i think to disable or mission kill a battle ship by modern antiship missiles isn't very hard , most antiship missiles are precision guided weapon , modern missiles such as SLAM-ER , JSM , NSM ..etc can choose their exact impact point , the fire control radar of battle ship are not armored ( because it not possible to put them behind armor ), the citadel have glass window that can be easily penetrated by antiship missiles

one shot into these area and the battle ship is close to useless

On the other hand sinking a battle ship is extremely hard , i dont think bombs like GBU-12 , GBU-31 , GBU-28 can actually penetrate battleship armor ( it seem that a kinetic energy penetrator ,it is about 15-20 times easiler to penetrate concrete compared to RHA ),
missiles with HEAT warhead can easily penetrate battle ship armor but , the massive size of the ship with alot of space mean they will do very little damage , the ammo compartment is very far from anywhere the HEAT warhead can reach

and all a HEAT warhead can do is make a really tiny hole , if there isn't anything there to explode or burn then it will be just a hole

[count_to_10]

Eloise, killing a battleship has always been about hitting the powder magazine (unless you intend to pound it all day long). While the side armor can be meter's thick, the deck armor can't be, and dive bombers were able to get their bombs through in WWII. Chances are a modern penetrating bomb would go right through, and, if aimed correctly, light off the magazine. If I'm not mistaken, anti-ship missiles would do the same when they are set to do a "pop-up" maneuver and attack from the top (though the videos of test attacks I have seen have all been side attack).

[sferrin]

Eloise, killing a battleship has always been about hitting the powder magazine (unless you intend to pound it all day long). While the side armor can be meter's thick, the deck armor can't be, and dive bombers were able to get their bombs through in WWII. Chances are a modern penetrating bomb would go right through, and, if aimed correctly, light off the magazine. If I'm not mistaken, anti-ship missiles would do the same when they are set to do a "pop-up" maneuver and attack from the top (though the videos of test attacks I have seen have all been side attack).

HUGE difference between a 1900lb AP shell fired from a 16" gun and a 500lb blast warhead (Harpoon). Saw a picture of a Kormoran warhead once. Looked like a short, fat artillery shell with maybe a dozen conical divots arranged around the cylindrical section. Don't know if they were suppose to behave like shaped charges or SFFs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AS.34_Kormoran

[cantaz]

On the other hand sinking a battle ship is extremely hard , i dont think bombs like GBU-12 , GBU-31 , GBU-28 can actually penetrate battleship armor ( it seem that a kinetic energy penetrator ,it is about 15-20 times easiler to penetrate concrete compared to RHA ),

The Germans sank the Roma with 2 x 3,000lb bombs of inferior metallurgy, guidance, fusing, attack angle and release velocity to the GBU-28. That's a fact.

I have little doubt that with enough data on the internal arrangement and armour scheme, 2 well-placed GBU-28s can sink any battleship that ever sailed.

[castlebravo]

i think to disable or mission kill a battle ship by modern antiship missiles isn't very hard , most antiship missiles are precision guided weapon , modern missiles such as SLAM-ER , JSM , NSM ..etc can choose their exact impact point , the fire control radar of battle ship are not armored ( because it not possible to put them behind armor ), the citadel have glass window that can be easily penetrated by antiship missiles

7892179036_d310c821ba_b.jpg

one shot into these area and the battle ship is close to useless

The conning tower portion of the citadel behind those windows is protected by ~18" of armor. The deck armor however is only ~6", and a single well placed GBU-28 would likely split the ship in half. A Mark 8 16" Super-Heavy armor piercing shell has about ~40lb of WWII era explosives in it compared the GBU-28's 600-900lbs of modern HE.

[eloise]

Eloise, killing a battleship has always been about hitting the powder magazine (unless you intend to pound it all day long). While the side armor can be meter's thick, the deck armor can't be, and dive bombers were able to get their bombs through in WWII. .

even thought the deck armor is thinner than the citadel and the turret , they are still very very thick
For example the Yamoto have 410 mm side armor , 650 mm face turret armor ,540 mm of Barbettes armor , the deck is thinnest but still around 230 mm of steel , that is alot of steel to go through without HEAT warhead


the super heavy Mark 8 AP round on battle ship, that weight 2700 lbs, travelling at Mach 2 can penetrate about 357 mm of steel or 15-20 meters of concrete at 38 km
so a penetration weapon using kinetic energy alone can penetrate around 40-56 times deeper again concrete compared to steel
(GBU-28) bomb is capable of penetrating 100 feet (30 meters )of earth or 20 feet (6 meters ) of concrete so theoretically speaking it should be able to penetrate around 120-140 mm of steel ( around 1/2 of deck armor )

A Mark 8 16" Super-Heavy armor piercing shell has about ~40lb of WWII era explosives in it compared the GBU-28's 600-900lbs of modern HE.

that is because the Mark8 is mostly steel cone to allow it penetrate armor , GBU-28 on the other hand have much thinner case since it wasn't designed to penetrate steel but only concrete and soil

[cantaz]

What part of dropping over 4,000lb of high yield steel at high subsonic from 30,000' makes it inferior to half that weight in shell fired from a cannon?

[eloise]

What part of dropping over 4,000lb of high yield steel at high subsonic from 30,000' makes it inferior to half that weight in shell fired from a cannon?

one move at mach 2 the others is subsonic , one have very very thick penetration cone while the other have much thinner casing

[spazsinbad]

There is a lot of info online about the loss of HMS Hood with discussions about shells and all the etceteras - onesuch: http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... -30817.htm

[sergei]

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

The temperature is not very high less than 800 ° pressure has a pivotal role.

[tincansailor]

On the other hand sinking a battle ship is extremely hard , i dont think bombs like GBU-12 , GBU-31 , GBU-28 can actually penetrate battleship armor ( it seem that a kinetic energy penetrator ,it is about 15-20 times easiler to penetrate concrete compared to RHA ),

The Germans sank the Roma with 2 x 3,000lb bombs of inferior metallurgy, guidance, fusing, attack angle and release velocity to the GBU-28. That's a fact.

I have little doubt that with enough data on the internal arrangement and armour scheme, 2 well-placed GBU-28s can sink any battleship that ever sailed.

Yes I agree a GBU-28 could kill a Battleship. Assuming an aircraft that can carry a 5,000 pound bomb can keep a Laser on a moving target while it's shooting back the bomb could hit a magazine. Alternatively it could pass through the ship and detonate under it like what happened to the Roma, Warspite, and Philadelphia. Warspite and Philadelphia survived. What happened to them was equivalent to hitting a mine.

One of the factors not being discussed in killing a Battleship is that it has much better active defenses then a Russian tank. WWII American Battleships had the best fire control, and AAA defense in the world at that time. When the Iowa's were brought back in the 80's the original FC was retained because there was nothing better to replace them with. The MK-37 fire control system was so good attacking US BB's was almost suicide.

In the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands South Dakoda was escorting Enterprise. She had recently been equipped with a strong battery of 40mm guns, along with a small supply of 5" proximity fuse shells. During the Battle she was attacked by 65 Japanese aircraft. She was hit once by a 500 lbs. bomb on the roof of No2 Main Turret, causing no significant damage. In return SD shot down 26 aircraft, the record for any ship in history.

Bring the pigeons a little closer. Considering that SD had 4 fewer 5" guns then her sister ships in the SD class she still was able to do that. In Oct 1942 the Japanese still had competent pilots. After this little remembered battle the Japanese weren't willing to engage in a carrier battle for over a year while they trained new pilots. In fact they didn't commit their carriers again till June 1944.

Now granted they were dealing with aircraft flying at little over 300mph but their radar can still track targets twice that speed and train their guns on them from a distance. I'm sure Gums and spazsinbad can testify to the effectiveness of that kind of defense. 10, 5" guns can fire 120 rounds of proximity shells a minute. I'd like to hear their thoughts on attacking a Battleship using bombs? I know 4 of the guns were taken off from each side but this is my fantasy so there back.

Now since this fight would take place today we could give the Iowa's some upgrades. Upgrade the search radar. Replace the old twin 5" turrets with modern single 5" 62 mounts. Remove the 40, and 20mm guns and replace them with 2 Phalanx, and 2 Sea Rams on each side. You then install a small VLS between the stacks for Evolved Sea Sparrow ESSM. Using a MK-48 VLS you could put in 32 ESSM's. Install some harpoon replacement launchers and your ready to go out looking for trouble.

Now I don't think there's a chance in Hell that they'll ever do what I'm talking about. The 4 Iowa Class BB's are destined to remain floating museums. Remember I said this was my fantasy. But if they did what I'm talking about what would everyone here think about attacking that kind of ship?