4 ms·

Modern naval battles won't be fought by ships ramming each other, they will be fought by sending supersonic missiles carrying large explosive chargers. Do these

Modern naval battles won't be fought by ships ramming each other, they will be fought by sending supersonic missiles carrying large explosive chargers. Do these incidents give you any confidence that a modern US Destroyer could withstand even one hit?

JohnBooty 9y ago
I don't know jack about designing armor, but it seems to me that the problems of supersonic missiles and collisions with massive objects present different challenges. Perhaps it's similar to the way that football pads don't stop bullets and yet bulletproof kevlar vests don't protect you from 300-pound football players? Regardless, I know that the Arleigh Burke class has a number of antimissile countermeasures. But the bottom line is: I really don't know of any vehicle (air, surface, underwater, ground, space, whatever) designed to survive supersonic missiles. I mean, even massive WWII-era battleships were helpless against smaller munitions like 500-pound bombs dropped from planes. Air superiority: either you have it, or your ships are screwed.
jandrewrogers 9y ago
Which is precisely the point. The ship is equipped with defense in depth against barrages of supersonic missiles. Defense against large ships ramming them, not so much. Most modern defenses are active intercept. More and more weapons are such that practical armor doesn't buy you much protection.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The ship is equipped with defense in depth against barrages of supersonic missiles. Defense against large ships ramming them, not so much. Its got defense against that, too. Though the first stage of that defense is detection by sensors ranging from the Mk I eyeball to fancy radar, etc.
Amezarak 9y ago
> Do these incidents give you any confidence that a modern US Destroyer could withstand even one hit? Destroyers are not designed to be hit by missiles, they are designed to intercept and destroy missiles with Aegis or CIWS before the missiles hit them or the carrier they're protecting. There is no amount of armor in the world that can protect you from a missile, because they are very easy to scale, all the way up to nuclear warheads.
- jabl 9y ago
  IIRC I read somewhere on the internet (so it must be true!) that modern US destroyers/cruisers have a limited amount of (carbon fiber, IIRC) armor around a few critical places such as the command center. Not enough to protect against a direct hit, more to prevent shrapnel or spalling from killing the personnel there.
  - JohnBooty 9y ago
    Yes, absolutely. The "all or nothing" armoring philosophy has been the dominant trend in naval armor since WWI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor) (I don't know about the Arleigh Burke class in particular, but I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case)
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Yes, it's also a reason the HMS Hood blew up and intently sank with nearly 2,000 sailors from a single shell hit. Our destroyers are likely to be in battle for just minutes in a real war.

JohnBooty 9y ago

I don't know jack about designing armor, but it seems to me that the problems of supersonic missiles and collisions with massive objects present different challenges. Perhaps it's similar to the way that football pads don't stop bullets and yet bulletproof kevlar vests don't protect you from 300-pound football players? Regardless, I know that the Arleigh Burke class has a number of antimissile countermeasures. But the bottom line is: I really don't know of any vehicle (air, surface, underwater, ground, space, whatever) designed to survive supersonic missiles. I mean, even massive WWII-era battleships were helpless against smaller munitions like 500-pound bombs dropped from planes. Air superiority: either you have it, or your ships are screwed.

jandrewrogers 9y ago

Which is precisely the point. The ship is equipped with defense in depth against barrages of supersonic missiles. Defense against large ships ramming them, not so much. Most modern defenses are active intercept. More and more weapons are such that practical armor doesn't buy you much protection.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The ship is equipped with defense in depth against barrages of supersonic missiles. Defense against large ships ramming them, not so much. Its got defense against that, too. Though the first stage of that defense is detection by sensors ranging from the Mk I eyeball to fancy radar, etc.

Amezarak 9y ago

> Do these incidents give you any confidence that a modern US Destroyer could withstand even one hit? Destroyers are not designed to be hit by missiles, they are designed to intercept and destroy missiles with Aegis or CIWS before the missiles hit them or the carrier they're protecting. There is no amount of armor in the world that can protect you from a missile, because they are very easy to scale, all the way up to nuclear warheads.

jabl 9y ago
IIRC I read somewhere on the internet (so it must be true!) that modern US destroyers/cruisers have a limited amount of (carbon fiber, IIRC) armor around a few critical places such as the command center. Not enough to protect against a direct hit, more to prevent shrapnel or spalling from killing the personnel there.
- JohnBooty 9y ago
  Yes, absolutely. The "all or nothing" armoring philosophy has been the dominant trend in naval armor since WWI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor) (I don't know about the Arleigh Burke class in particular, but I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case)
- valuearb 9y ago
  Yes, it's also a reason the HMS Hood blew up and intently sank with nearly 2,000 sailors from a single shell hit. Our destroyers are likely to be in battle for just minutes in a real war.