Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[76mmGuns]

On the topic of missiles, I would like to ask a very amateur question. If a modern anti ship missile hit a ship with WW2 level thick armour, would the missile penetrate? I know deck armour is thinner than side armour. It can penetrate today's ships because their metal is similar to a Toyota Corolla in thickness. But is it were, say 12 inch plating?

(please delete is this question is too amateur)

 

[spoz]

Aluminium does not burn in a shipboard fire, it melts. While Sheffield and Coventry were lost, Glasgow and Nottingham survived significant damage. There always a bit of luck, good or bad, in such situations - where the hit occurs, who and what it takes out, that sort of thing. But the 42s were reasonably survivable ships, particularly after the SA when some WW2 lessons (smoke boundaries etc) which had been forgotten were relearned.

21s were another story; designed to be cheap and fast to build and cheap to operate. Not in the same class.

The lessons of WW2 are all still appropriate. They are about the controlling and preventing the spread of flood and fire, retaining electrical power and the like. Nothing to do with armour or, really, the purpose (other than to be a survivable example of her type) to do with the particular role of the ship. It’s certainly got nothing to do with whether the ship is armoured or not. Although, BTW, many modern surface combatants do have armour - but of Kevlar, not steel.

Oh, and modern warships sides are not the thickness of a Corolla; most DD size ships have plating thicknesses of between about 30 and 60 mm of special steels

 

[downunderblue]

Most people would have seen the video of a torpedo sinking poor old Torrens. Note that was a perfect test, with the detonation exactly under the centre point of the hull, at the optimum depth to maximise the shock wave.

In that scenario, any ship has limited chance of surviving, however if the variables change, then the impact is less. And they don't need to change by much (energy dissipates inversley to the radius by the power of 4). Ships do have tactics to avoid getting in this perfect triangle. Who wins, the cat or the mouse, difficult to say.

Cruise missiles, by design, will hit above the waterline. Most will actually rise or rotate in the final attack stage to be able to dive down on the ship and avoid final defences. They work by penetrating and then exploding. They may not rupture the hull at all. They are the equivalent of a lead bullet, designed to maximise tearing up your insides.

Case in point is the recent sinkex at RIMPAC involving USS Tarawa. She was hit by a LRASM, then an NSM fired by HMAS Sydney, but what took her out was a 'Quicksink' munition dropped by a B-2.

Publically we won't exactly know how much damage the LRASM or NSM achieved, but the JDAM like 'quicksink' munition is deliberately designed to detonate below the waterline, causing a hydrostatic bubble/shock wave similar in effect to a torpedo impact.

It's an interesting concept and can be used with a 2000 lb Mk84 GPB, which is much larger than the 647 lb warhead on the Mk48. Mind you, getting an aircraft that close to a surface vessel may be dangerous, but we all recall how close those A4 Skyhawks got in San Carlos Water, so it's definately feasible especially with LO aircraft.

AFRL’S QUICKSINK WEAPON DEMO – Air Force Research Laboratory

afresearchlab.com

 

[devo99]

in fact in my day there was a great series posters around the Navy entitled “Damage Control Saved This Ship” which made learning examples of seriously damaged RN ships and how DC was applied. That I can still remember them 50 or so years later shows their impact.

You'd be referring to this series I assume. There are 12 in total.

 

[SammyC]

You'd be referring to this series I assume. There are 12 in total.

Nice read devo. I'd love to read the other eight.

I liked the matter of fact statement for Javelin that she straightened up once the bow fell off. Shows that any bulkhead can suddenly become a bow.

Or that Arethusa sailed 450 nm in reverse, and Kelly saw off another attack before reaching the safety of a port.

 

[iambuzzard]

You'd be referring to this series I assume. There are 12 in total.

I concur with Sammy. Do you have the other eight?

 

[SammyC]

On the topic of missiles, I would like to ask a very amateur question. If a modern anti ship missile hit a ship with WW2 level thick armour, would the missile penetrate? I know deck armour is thinner than side armour. It can penetrate today's ships because their metal is similar to a Toyota Corolla in thickness. But is it were, say 12 inch plating?

(please delete is this question is too amateur)

Interesting question 76.

If we look at the LRASM for instance, it is based on the JASSM, which uses a penetrating charge (superplastic metal jet) to blow through hardened targets. So I suspect it could go through decent armour plating. I'm not sure the LRASM has the same charge though, as it does a different purpose.

In the hypothetical world of armoured ships and missiles. If history had gone that way, then I suspect missiles would have come with the penetrating capability to match. There are other bunker busting and tank piercing systems that can go through a lot, so the technology is certainly available to make a missile that could punch through 12 inches of steel.

That's my two bobs.

 

[devo99]

Nice read devo. I'd love to read the other eight.

Luckily I have the scans of all of them but I can only send four at a time.

 

[spoz]

You'd be referring to this series I assume. There are 12 in total.

Yep

 

[devo99]

The last four.

 

[iambuzzard]

The last four.

Thanks Devo. An interesting read.

 

[iambuzzard]

Any more scuttlebutt on the down select for the GPF? The media has gone awfully quiet on the subject. Maybe it's been delayed until the election campaign!

 

[swerve]

To be fair though, such lessons need to be heeded more often by not just the armed forces. During the '93 World Trade Center bombing in NYC, USA, the design and implementation of the site's building emergency systems proved inadequate. This was at least in part because the backup systems were co-located with the primary systems, so that when the blast knocked out the primaries, the backups were also knocked out. I myself have also worked at a facility that was rendered out of service because of a lack of foresight with respect to systems and where they were located. In this case, a water main leak caused by frozen pipes ended up flooding the server/switch room which for some reason someone decided to locate directly under the water main. Making the problem both worse and more frustrating is that whilst someone had the foresight to include a backup server and switches just in case something happened to the main systems, the backups were located 2' over from the mains, so the backs became expensive door stops after the deluge from the burst water main.

Gawd!

My last full-time employer had backup servers for its main systems - about 500 km away, in another country. Main in England, backup in Ireland. Seemed sensible.

 

[Todjaeger]

Gawd!

My last full-time employer had backup servers for its main systems - about 500 km away, in another country. Main in England, backup in Ireland. Seemed sensible.

That server was the phone switch server for that site, not an enterprise wide server. The irony was that the site was a tech support call center, which needed tech support and could not call anyone, because the phone server and back up ended up taking a shower. Still, having a server located beneath a suspended water main was, to be nice, dumb IMO. Having the backup server located right next to the main in such circumstances however IMO was not dumb, rather, than was being cheap to the point of miserly foolishness.

 

[devo99]

I visited the Navy Heritage Centre today and they've almost completely cleared the place out aside from the larger items. I was told they're moving a lot of stuff out from the repository on Spectacle Island as well with some of it going to HMAS Cerberus. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get any more information about what is happening with the rest of the collection so I can only hope they're setting up a proper display facility somewhere and not just moving it all to a storage warehouse.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Any more scuttlebutt on the down select for the GPF? The media has gone awfully quiet on the subject. Maybe it's been delayed until the election campaign!

I think they are deep in the selection and build options.
Globally there is a lot happening right now. Air defence capability is in demand. We are seeing peer strikes/wars in the middle east now.

Japan is expected to cut steel this year sometimes, but I heard perhaps early 2025. I expect everyone is busy trying to put final offers and industry wide strategies together.

It isn't just about a ship. There is some noises about these being gateways for mass technologies and sovereign production capabilities. Questions about whole supply chain capabilities.

 

[iambuzzard]

I think they are deep in the selection and build options.
Globally there is a lot happening right now. Air defence capability is in demand. We are seeing peer strikes/wars in the middle east now.

Japan is expected to cut steel this year sometimes, but I heard perhaps early 2025. I expect everyone is busy trying to put final offers and industry wide strategies together.

It isn't just about a ship. There is some noises about these being gateways for mass technologies and sovereign production capabilities. Questions about whole supply chain capabilities.

Thanks Stingray. I suspect this will be way beyond just a contract to build frigates for the RAN. We are probably looking at a production facility out of harm's way. Korea and Japan are in the firing line. Production out of range of potential enemy action is looking to be a priority. If things go pear shaped our manufacturing sector may explode.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Thanks Stingray. I suspect this will be way beyond just a contract to build frigates for the RAN. We are probably looking at a production facility out of harm's way. Korea and Japan are in the firing line. Production out of range of potential enemy action is looking to be a priority. If things go pear shaped our manufacturing sector may explode.

There is a lot going on in the sector. I don't think anyone is worried about lack of political announcements, there seems to be bipartisan support for defence currently, maybe some different ideas on how, and everyone wants things ASAP.

There are a lot of ADF personnel going on visits, and a lot of visitors coming to Australia.

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2024-09-30/aussie-frigate-welcomes-japanese-admiral-board

AUKUS front: Japan's top admiral visits Australian submarine base

Navy chief Sakai seeks deeper collaboration with nuclear-powered fleet

asia.nikkei.com

The Japanese are very excited about AUKUS, and the SSN operating from Australia. As an alliance partner, Japan is seeing Australia as perhaps equally important as the US. For Japan the question is how do they keep the US engaged in their region, and ultimately they can see Australia playing perhaps a critical role in Asia. Australia's capabilities while small, are high end. And they can see perhaps no country has the relationship AU-US have. Japan is an important trading partner for Australia, and Australia is ultra important for Japan. Australia is a food, energy supplier that is unlikely to be pressured by China (where as much of Asia, even if they wanted to help, is likely to have unsecure sealines).

Korea is also very interested in Australia, but even they recognize that Japan has gone after Australia with tremendous unexpected fury. To the level they are now trying to re-assess they current state of play, because the Japanese seem to be acting very proactively, like they are depending on it and know stuff. The Koreans are also a bit confused with the signaling coming out of the US regarding them as alliance partners and the Austal and US shipyard things. Korea is also pretty involved in Europe now, with deals in Poland and Turkey, and some deals with the US which then go to Europe.

So just because the Prime minister isn't giving daily briefings, doesn't mean nothing is happening. There is a lot of behind the curtain stuff going on. Uniform to uniform, industry to industry, government to government. Both Japan and Korea are pretty understated about what they are doing as well, bit of a cultural thing there. If it was Spain, or France, we would be getting blasted with endless PR on it.

There is a lot of mixing of uniforms currently. It seems to be some sort of assessment as to if Australians and Japanese can get along culturally, socially, professionally, etc. Earlier in this thread, there were some questions about why Army would be flown out to look at a Japanese ship in Japan. I think the bit we all missed was it wasn't about looking at the ship, it was about looking at personnel from the Army.

Of course it sounds like they are. Australia saved both America and Japanese personel from Aliens back in 2012..

 

[iambuzzard]

There is a lot going on in the sector. I don't think anyone is worried about lack of political announcements, there seems to be bipartisan support for defence currently, maybe some different ideas on how, and everyone wants things ASAP.

There are a lot of ADF personnel going on visits, and a lot of visitors coming to Australia.

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2024-09-30/aussie-frigate-welcomes-japanese-admiral-board

AUKUS front: Japan's top admiral visits Australian submarine base

Navy chief Sakai seeks deeper collaboration with nuclear-powered fleet

asia.nikkei.com

The Japanese are very excited about AUKUS, and the SSN operating from Australia. As an alliance partner, Japan is seeing Australia as perhaps equally important as the US. For Japan the question is how do they keep the US engaged in their region, and ultimately they can see Australia playing perhaps a critical role in Asia. Australia's capabilities while small, are high end. And they can see perhaps no country has the relationship AU-US have. Japan is an important trading partner for Australia, and Australia is ultra important for Japan. Australia is a food, energy supplier that is unlikely to be pressured by China (where as much of Asia, even if they wanted to help, is likely to have unsecure sealines).

Korea is also very interested in Australia, but even they recognize that Japan has gone after Australia with tremendous unexpected fury. To the level they are now trying to re-assess they current state of play, because the Japanese seem to be acting very proactively, like they are depending on it and know stuff. The Koreans are also a bit confused with the signaling coming out of the US regarding them as alliance partners and the Austal and US shipyard things. Korea is also pretty involved in Europe now, with deals in Poland and Turkey, and some deals with the US which then go to Europe.

So just because the Prime minister isn't giving daily briefings, doesn't mean nothing is happening. There is a lot of behind the curtain stuff going on. Uniform to uniform, industry to industry, government to government. Both Japan and Korea are pretty understated about what they are doing as well, bit of a cultural thing there. If it was Spain, or France, we would be getting blasted with endless PR on it.

There is a lot of mixing of uniforms currently. It seems to be some sort of assessment as to if Australians and Japanese can get along culturally, socially, professionally, etc. Earlier in this thread, there were some questions about why Army would be flown out to look at a Japanese ship in Japan. I think the bit we all missed was it wasn't about looking at the ship, it was about looking at personnel from the Army.

Of course it sounds like they are. Australia saved both America and Japanese personel from Aliens back in 2012..

Yep, Boomer flying the F/A-18. A nice touch.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

On the topic of missiles, I would like to ask a very amateur question. If a modern anti ship missile hit a ship with WW2 level thick armour, would the missile penetrate? I know deck armour is thinner than side armour. It can penetrate today's ships because their metal is similar to a Toyota Corolla in thickness. But is it were, say 12 inch plating?

(please delete is this question is too amateur)

Further to Sammy C's comments, I would say this is a question of design intent. Modern SSMs are not designed to penetrate a battleship's armour, and so they probably couldn't do as built. But if it became a requirement, I'm sure SSM warhead designs could be changed so that they could penetrate thick armour.

Most modern warships are considered "out of action" once their sensors and systems are knocked out. That is very hard to stop, and so a high explosive SSM warhead hitting a warship will render it ineffective quickly. This is not a new problem. In the WWII Second (Night) battle of Guadalcanal, the US battleship South Dakota was effectively knocked out early when a power failure took out its fire control and radar, rendering it blind in the night action. Its main belt armour was not penetrated.

Modern SSMs are large and have big warheads - 100+ kg of explosives. They are not designed for armour penetration. But what if they were? Consider the much smaller warheads on modern infantry anti-tank missiles. They have shaped charge warheads to burn their way through armour. A 1980s TOW 2 could penetate 500mm of armour with a 6kg warhead. That is as much as any battleship had. (The Yammato main belt was 16" = 400mm). So you can see that if a modern NSM with a 120kg warhead was fitted with a shaped charge, it could penetrate far more.

Also, whilst not heavily armoured compared to WWII warships, the steel on a modern warship hull (10+mm) is still a lot thicker than on a Toyota Corolla (1 to 3mm)