Military Tech & Politics

*zeo · March 3, 2008

BTW, the Navy hasn't done anything on the battleships aside from a few studies for the past two decades. It would cost anywhere from a mere reactivation cost of 500 million to 2 billion dollars to fully refit them from 1980's technology to 2008 technology. The biggest problem with battleships is that we don't have the industry to foll out armor plates, and manufacture 16" shells anymore and on top of that have manpower to man the battleships. Also, they're overkill for today's oceans. There are not alot of armor piercing shells or missiles that can penetrate battleship armor.

That depends, what would you call ships like the DDG-1000 then?

Yes they are overkill but I think it's just ships of the future will tend to be smaller and more multi-purpose.

Plus weapons like railgun cannons will require a complete redesign from traditional ships, since they need to produce a lot of electrical energy for such weapons as well as for propulsion.

So the Navy is looking to make the fleet faster and more flexible.

McAvoy · March 7, 2008

That depends, what would you call ships like the DDG-1000 then?

A destroyer because that is what the Navy calls it. But that's where I mean the terms have become somewhat muddled. Destroyers now are about the same size as WW2 Heavy Cruisers and Cruisers have approached the size of WW1 battleships.

But technically it would be a battlecruiser, since it has no armor but has high speed and high firepower. Battleships are well known in the public eye, and probably no ship will be called a battleship, unless it has some sort of heavy gun like a 14" or 16" gun on it with thick armor... or the class is called the Iowa class.

Battleships would be extremely powerful today if they still continued with battleship development. Chances would be that they would be of similar size to a super carrier armed with missiles, longer range heavy guns, high speed armored against the latest weapons, and probably would be expensive as hell.

Technically the Iowa class should be called Fast Super-Duper Dreadnoughts. Since they are all big gun battleships with large guns than 12" and is extremely fast even compared to other battlecruisers.

*zeo · March 7, 2008

That depends, what would you call ships like the DDG-1000 then?

A destroyer because that is what the Navy calls it.

Actually that's only what they call it now, before the cut backs they had bigger plans for the DDX. The DD-21 was the first cutback before they finally settled on the DD-1000. So it's a shell of its original design intent.

In fact collectively the CGX, DDX, and LCS programs were intended to fill the gap left by the Battleships when they were taken out of service.

It's one of those read between the lines type deals. Especially since the new weapon systems collectively give far greater firepower than their ship class would normally imply.

Also Naval R&D is going increasingly more towards supporting ground troops and Marine insertion teams in coastal combat, which the tank like Battleships of old couldn't properly pull off.

So you could say the CGX, DDX, and LCS are collectively the new generation battleship. At least the closest we're going to get for the next 2 generations or so.

*zeo · March 11, 2008

Hmm, looks like work on smart composites may help you with maintenance soon McAvoy.

http://technology.newscientist.com/arti ... 626245.000

http://www.imechanica.org/node/2118

McAvoy · March 12, 2008

Interesting but that isn't really my job. I don't work on the airframe itself. But let's remember that while it might save time and money, how much more money would the Super Hornet be with it incorporated it into the plane? Would the price jump up from 65 to 150 million? Would the Navy really save money? There are alot of things that could be incorporated into the Super Hornet but hasn't due to cost. One of those is a double lamenated canopy design so that the flowcoat is sandwiched in between those two layers as opposed to be laid on top of the canopy. This flowcoat is RAM also, so the Super Hornet kind of needs it.

Also the term battleship wouldn't fit the description of the DDG-1000. Battlecruiser might.Heavy firepower, high speed, and little armor. Battleships are designed to duke it out with other ships and survive. There are not alot of vessels out there that can survive direct hits from missiles like a battleship could. A carrier would but that's because of sheer size.

*zeo · March 13, 2008

Yes, this particular technology will absolutely reduce costs. The materials aren't any harder to produce than existing composites and the self healing nature of this product will lengthen the times the material has to be replaced. Ergo reducing maintenance costs significantly.

Reduced fracturing also means the air intakes have less to deal with

As for the DD-1000, I think it's debateable.

The DD-1000 for example is designed to take heavy damage. Especially because of the missiles, http://www.raytheon.com/products/ddg_10 ... index.html

You can't say the same for a Battleship if it takes an equivalent hit where the ammo is stored. The heavy armor only went so far and material technology of traditional battleships is well over a century old.

In comparison, ships of the 21st century don't rely on heavy armor alone anymore. The designs are much more advance and get more done with less.

Composite armor can do the job of much heavier traditional armor, in fact that's why we use composite materials for armor. It by no means means a ship is lightly armored if it uses composite materials for armor. It just means the ship is lighter for an equivalent armor protection.

Never mind the modern ships are also all being designed for stealth as well, which makes the ships harder to hit in the first place.

Even the hull design of the DD-1000 is also to make it harder to sink as well as stealthy. Never mind there is more than just physical armor to ship defenses these days.

Even the heaviests of armored ships can still be taken out with the weapon systems the navy is equiping ships like the DD-1000 with.

So weapons that take out incoming missiles, etc are much more important than heavy armor for 21st century warefare.

So I think you may have to re-evaluate your definition of a battleship. Especially since warefare of the future will most likely be done over longer distances than the battleships of old were ever capable of.

The DD-1000 can for example take out targets up to 83 nautical miles away and do so with near pinpoint target strikes. Though it is intended to support land battles those same weapon systems can easily take out nautical targets as well. This compared to the just over 26 mile range of a Battleship's (like Yamato's) guns.

And that's not even going into the railgun system, which can have even greater range and as much power as any Battleship cannon. Never mind railgun projectiles are self guidable for greater realiability and no need for dangerous gunpower.

So CGX, DDX, and LCS collectively fill the gap left by the decomission of the battleships from the fleet and shows the warships of the future will look very different from the warships of the past.

Though you are right that presently such ships aren't classified as Battleships, but this discussion is about where the navy is headed more than what it presently is at.

McAvoy · March 15, 2008

Ah... but there lies the problem. Heavy armor has the advantage of being well... heavy. If you look at the post-battle damage photos on the battleships you'll see that even though shells did not penetrate the heavy armor, the armor was still dished out or even cracked. A speeding bullet the mass of a car going slightly above Mach 2 will still do alot of damage. Missiles are heavier and bigger than a battleship shell.

Ships nowadays rely on the hit first, hit hard idea. If hit the ships have excellent damage control to take care of any damage. Though some weapons will just obliterate the ship, kind of like designing a car to have a crumple zone then expect it to withstand a train at full speed. Not going to happen.

Also, the new materials that we put on our planes and some I have already seen on our ships, can be literally broke in half with your hands. It is one of ther reasons why we have cracks surrounding our intakes in my squadron. BTW, the cracks were sealed up with some sealant. It is a wait and see attitude right now, since in order to repair the cracks we have to literally take apart the intake down to the frame and that takes months and we are gearing up for cruise (my third) in six months.

What I meant by those new self repairing materials, what I meant was unit price per plane. While it would save money on maintaince, it might increase the price per plane. If the Navy wasn't concerned about unit price per plane, then the Navy would have built a different plane than the Super Hornet. Like for example... a F-14E or a F/A-100 uber super duper plane that costs 10 billion per plane...

*zeo · March 16, 2008

Shouldn't be a problem then, since the manufacturing process is the same. Just basically adding a layer that produces the self healing effect whenever a crack forms.

Though introducing the new material may cost a bit at first as things always cost more when they first come out, but that should only delay its adoption. Especially since the savings in maintenance would be several times that of the unit cost at the very least. Never mind the time lost in repair work, as you rightly pointed out.

Armor technology in general doesn't follow the thinking of old. Heavy armor, is not only heavy but harder to replace when damaged. Also heavy armor would be easier to penetrate than today's armor.

The only advantage you pointed out was taking a hit like from a train. But ships today aren't likely to ram each other and that brittle armor you're complaining about is more likely to keep you alive.

Armor, like on helicopters for example are made up materials like graphite which may be brittle but has a lot of stopping power.

Just like the old steel cars may survive an impact better than today's cars but only in today's cars would the driver survive the impact.

Which I think is more important, the car can be repaired but the driver is quite a bit harder to replace.

Just look at the ceramic ballistic plates for body armor, they may be brittle but they can stop a bullet better than a steel plate. You just have to replace it every time it gets hit.

Course armor technology is always improving, they are developing ballistic plates for example that can take multiple hits to replace the present ceramic based plates. And you can bet that technology will trickle on through to all similar armor technologies.

There is also the research going into plasma shield technology, which shows some real potential.

:lol: That reminds me the military has also gone into research to using lasers to bond metal to human bone :wink:

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-release ... -laser.php

McAvoy · March 16, 2008

The military has always been looking into bonding metal to bone. Artificial replacement for lost limbs is one of the military's contributions to society.

I agree, heavy armor like the 12.2" Krupp steel of the Iowa's probably can be replaced by much thinner armor. Ships have not rammed each other on purpose since the Battle of Lissa 150 years ago, and only as a last resort in WW1, such as HMS Dreadnought herself ramming a German U-Boat. My point is that thin armor does not have the mass to withstand a missile attack. While yes it'll absorb the explosion of the missile and but the sheer kinetic energy of a missile going past the speed of sound and weighing a few tons is very hard to stop. It's one of the reasons why in the 1980's the Iowa class was recommissioned. It's ability to withstand missiles with nothing more than scortched paint on the armor. As you probably know, you can take out a ship without sinking a ship just by disabling it.

I am not sure about the self healing material. But it would definitely save time and energy on repairing some of the stress cracks that has cropped up over the years. We have a plane down for a stress crack where the horzonital stabilizer pivots. It's pretty bad and was luckily caught before it went flying again otherwise it was theorized that the whole stab might have ripped off. That is also a case in point. The stab is made of composite and like I said you can break it with your bare hands which in some parts of the aircraft it should not there.

Sometimes these new fangled materials and technology may seem great on paper but sucks the big one in real practice. For expample I work with oxygen systems. The F-14 had a LOX system which the liquid oxygen is condensed into 10 liter container and over time it boils up allows the pilot to breath 100% oxygen. The only problem every day you have to refill it. The OBOGS system which is nifty piece of technology from NASA filters nitrogen from the air giving the pilot 99% oxygen mixture. Here is the problem: it breaks down alot. The valve that regulates the air into the OBOGS filter constantly breaks so constant air goes through the filter without stopping. Obviously pumping 99% oxygen into the ****pit is a bad thing. LOX doesn't have that problem because it is just a stream of tubes that gives the liquid oxygen time to heat up from -292 degress to around 65 degrees. Very simple.

Both take up the same amount of space, and I believe their weight difference is very small, but if I were to take a guess, the OBOGS system weighs a bit more.

Though whoever came up with the canopy flowcoat for the Super Hornet should be arrested and tried fro treason, then sent to every AME shop in every squadron, for a nice beat down.

Though I like the NACES ejection seat over the GRU-7. A good sturdy design which takes less time to take out of the aircraft.

*zeo · March 16, 2008

Can't argue with you there, some of those so called engineers really could use a beat down :twisted:

McAvoy · March 16, 2008

I agree. Incidently the ejection seats are British made... so much for Made in the USA...

*zeo · August 20, 2008

Update...

Navy Wants Lots of Lasers!

Get Your F-15 Eagle Hybrid Now!

*zeo · August 26, 2008

New Sphere in Exploring the Abyss

McAvoy · August 30, 2008

In regards to the eco-friendly F-15:

It's amazing to hear that the Air Force is still using JP-8. That has a much lower flashpoint, and in normal weather will develop much more fumes than JP-5 or JP-4. For example, to fill a Super Hornet with JP-8 will only take around 16k pounds as opposed to the 17k+ with JP-5 or JP-4. I'm sure there is a reason behind it I guess.

*zeo · September 1, 2008

@McAvoy, they said it was a mix fuel. JP-8 was only half of the mix, so whatever they mixed it with probably completely changed its properties. Anyway...

Good Stuff...

First Flight of Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator

Stunning Desert Canyon Flight Video

Extreme Engineering M1 Abrams Tank

Interesting Stuff...

NRO (not NSA) On the Chopping Block

Bad Stuff...

Harrier Crash Due to Pilot Error

Signal Changes

Afghanistan Sold Short -- Allied Troops Die

And the ongoing body armor soap opera continues to make us wonder what the military really cares about, the bottom line or the troops?

McAvoy · September 1, 2008

Well I meant that they were using JP-8 as opposed to JP-4 or 5. Maybe it had to do something with the it's much lower flashpoint.

The last one is no suprise. Hell, when my younger brother (he's in the army), went to Iraq, my Dad tried to buy him much better body armor buut the army wouldn't allow it just because it is not standard issue even though it was superior.

*zeo · September 1, 2008

I know the basic concept behind that rule is valid, often times hype can make an armor seem better than it is and the rules and regulation are there to ensure the soldier's safety but when the military brass is so obviously biased in their analysis it becomes very hard to see how this is suppose to be making our troops safer.

McAvoy · September 1, 2008

Well there is a reason behind the word for our clothing is uniform...

But on the other hand, a few thousand extra dollars or whatever the difference in price between current body armor and better versions is a small price to pay than to pay $400,000 for the death of a soldier.

*zeo · September 3, 2008

Weapons-Grade Lasers by the End of '08?

Brits Take Care of a Downed Transport Plane by Blowing it Up :shock:

Once Again, We See That Girls Mature Faster Than Boys :mrgreen:

McAvoy · September 3, 2008

Nah... you go in the south, and you got 6 year olds doing that. :wink:

*zeo · September 3, 2008

Except she did it to impress the cutest boy in class... really, imagine his options to reacting to that video :twisted:

And the note, "Do you like me?" Yeah, girl shows she's combat ready with an assault rifle and what can he possibly say but yes. :twisted:

Imagine if she demonstrated its proper use too at a target range :shock:

Anyway, some video news... http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat ... ounge.html

*zeo · September 9, 2008

More News...

SAS kills hundreds of terrorists in 'secret war' against al-Qaeda in Iraq

Buffalo Chicken, Anyone? (MRE Update)

Liquid-cooled Underwear and Other Micro-climates

Volunteering as a Human Resource

Exoskeleton Update

The idea of an exoskeleton in a military application conjures up images of a digital cammie robocop, perhaps; and one day we may treat "exos" the same way we treat body armor. But the nearer-term utility of exoskeletons are somewhat less glamorous.

In 2007 the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center assumed responsibility for the management of the Exoskeleton project from DARPA. The Natick project is currently funded through FY 2009 and its goals are as follows:

1) In conjunction with the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command, develop a set of performance specifications for a full body Exoskeleton that will be the basis for a requirement for a version of the Exoskeleton that can assist Soldiers in accomplishing physically demanding tasks associated with loading and unloading supplies and heavy materiel, and performing vehicle maintenance.

2) Improve the human interface, biomechanical efficiency and ergonomic acceptability of the Exosketeton.

3) Develop compact, portable, efficient, safe power sources.

4) Reduce the cost and ruggedize the system.

5) Demonstrate reliability and safey for use by Soldiers.

During my recent visit to Natick, Exo-czars Jeffrey Schiffman and David Audet explained that they were focused on helping Soldiers make repetitive tasks like loading boxes on racks and rolling oil drums up ramps easier. They also have a vision of assisting Air Force and Navy ordies with loading missiles and bombs. Whereas it might take four guys to lift, say, a Sidewinder missile onto an F-16's wingtip station, an Exoskeleton would allow the same task to be performed by one guy.

Schiffman and Audet allowed that their main concerns right now were power sources and safety backup modes if the Exoskeleton suffers a mechanical failure. (Not a good thing if you're the ordie holding a Sidewinder, for instance.)

But otherwise Natick (in coordination with contractors like Sarcos and Raytheon) has the test plan on track. So maintainers and loggies everywhere take heart. Help for that aching back is on the way.

(Photo: John B. Carnett / POPULAR SCIENCE MAGAZINE)