Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Ship armor Message-ID: <6196@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 3 May 89 03:12:47 GMT References: <5929@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: U of Denver Lines: 58 Approved: military@att.att.com From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) > >>- Armor is "expensive" in weight, leading to a deeper draft, thus less >>fuel efficiency and less maximum speed (any other costs?). > >This is essentially it. In WWII and before, the "big three" items >in warship design were armor, propulsion, and armament; a gain in one >could only be achieved to the detriment of the others, unless you >could increase displacement (which was limited by docking considerations >and, at the time, the Panama Canal). > > >Armor doesn't add much to torpedo or mine defense. Basically, it >takes a *lot* of armor to resist an underwater explosion; more than >can be economically carried over such a large area. While current common missiles (Harpoon,Exocet etc) may not have nuch armor penetration. Until recently they have not needed it. Except for the CVs and the new Iowas and the Sov Kirov things were not armored. If u do hit a CV theory went the chances of damaging fuel etc on flight damage are so good that it would take a CV out of action for a while anyway. The advantage missiles have had over guns is mostly Range and Accuracy. You need toi fire just one missile, no ranging fire done and there is a good chance that it will hit its intended target. Any hit is bad for ships withg their delicate radar and sensor suites. The pop-ups though easier to knock out with missile defenses play havoc with control centres and radars. Iowa's armor gives it incredible protection but getting hit is still not pleasant and I'm quite sure that the Iowa's captain really would want to test his armor while trying to close within gun range of Sov ships. Missiles as a rule have required more space and magazine capacity more electronics to perform their mission. Since maneuverability(not speed!!) is considered paramount in evading missiles ships had to be light. Speed was necessary to avoid contacts and outrun subs. In the end armor was the thing that had to go. In general u want to point the bow or the stern at the missile to reduce your radar signature. Question being that while Iowa's are fast and armored are they maneuverable or do they turn like bath tubs? Missiles can be decoyed by chaff/flares etc but as in Jutland ships could hide themselves from guns under smoke sometimes unintentional smoke from the guns themselves. I think what has to be clearly understood is that the big thing about Iowa is their armor and only that. Their guns/size/speed is only of secondary importance in modern naval combat. They need air superiority to provide shore cover and ships with anti-missile defenses to protect them from enemy SSMs. Their speed while good is not awesome and they are not particularly maneuverable given their size. Their size is a handicap in a world where missiles lock-on based on size of radar return Iowa has a BIG radar signature. Their armor protects but their size attracts the enemy and the missiles, Iowas cannot avoid combat if given and as we can only speculate oin nature of future conflicts I don't think that being the center of attention is so good. The CV can avoid using planes but as I understand it the Iowas get their own Battle group sans air cover! I'm sure the Marines would love the Iowa's shore bombardment ability. I'm also sure they would prefer to be under CV CAP so they can get where they are supposed to... Ameer Z. Sulaiman.