Navalised Chobham armour?

[Lord Brisbane]

This thought just occurred to be, and I have no idea if its employed at the moment, but does any navy use 'Chobham armour' type protection on its ships?

An interesting what-if might be, that since it was developed in the 1960s in Britain OTL, maybe some RN types think it might be a good idea to have a look at this new ceramic armour and apply it to the navy.

Say the ceramic armour is worked into the new new Type 42 Destroyers which were being built in the 1970s, how much could this improve their survivability against anti-ship missiles?

Presuming everything else goes as it did, and the Falklands happens, could say the HMS Sheffield, with chobham style armour (either integral or added after completion) survive an Exocet hit?

 

[Bearcat]

I think a few ships use some exotic armors in small amounts in critical areas (bridge, magazines, engineering spaces, etc.). Maybe not the full Chobham composite but various Kevlar products.

No one builds ships with large areas of armor anymore. I think a "Chobham Battleship" would be highly resistant to a lot of weapons, but you're never going to be impervious to everything. Since it would be very, very expensive, no one has proceeded with the concept.

 

[Atomo]

The HMS Sheffield was made of steel which is the best warship armor there is. The issue when it comes to the Sheffield is one of active defense with CIWS systems as a last ditch effort, they didn't have them. Tanks are now going to with systems like the Trophy and Quick Kill systems.

 

[Lord Brisbane]

Well I wasn't going so much for the idea of a 'chobham battleship' concept, but more that it could be added to the Type 42, possible like the idea of 'armoured skirts' or bolted on plating to the outside of important areas such as the bridge, or areas related to magazines etc or worked into its protection before completion, (but without changing the fundamental design) around key areas to improve protection from anti-ship missiles.

In a way it almost harks back the idea of sheathing the hull of some Men-of-War with copper (I think it was). This might be a similar concept.

 

[Bearcat]

Well I wasn't going so much for the idea of a 'chobham battleship' concept, but more that it could be added to the Type 42, possible like the idea of 'armoured skirts' or bolted on plating to the outside of important areas such as the bridge, or areas related to magazines etc or worked into its protection before completion, (but without changing the fundamental design) around key areas to improve protection from anti-ship missiles.

In a way it almost harks back the idea of sheathing the hull of some Men-of-War with copper (I think it was). This might be a similar concept.

Well that's not far from whats been done. Problem is, any ASM hit is still a mission hit with a ship of that size, from shock if nothing else, and any fire might still destroy the ship altogether.

 

[Larrikin]

AShMs

Anti Shipping Missiles are not kinetic energy weapons, nor are they shaped charged.

The objective for the war head is to make a hole in the superstructure of the ship, and for the missiles remaining fuel to penetrate through the hole and start internal fires. Additionally, as noted, the shock of both the impact and the explosion can cause havoc with electronics, and electrical and mechanical equipment.

The big Soviet AShMs were as big as they were because they were intended for use on USN aircraft carriers which were in the 85-100k tonnes range. In other words, they were very big because so were their targets.

AShMs don't actually have to sink ships, they just need to mission kill them, and to stop that you would need armour on the scale of full blown battleships over almost all of the ship. From the 19 teens onwards the most sophisticated battleship armour schemes were "all or nothing" and really protected just the magazines and engineering spaces, plus the main turrets. With that scheme AShMs would still be very effective in mission killing them.

 

[Bearcat]

Just for shits and giggles, does anyone have a rough idea of how Chobham compares to rolled steel against various classes of weapons?

I know it's different for kinetic penetrators versus WW2 style AP bombs and shells versus a shaped charge weapon of given diameter.

In other words, how much better in terms of penetration or lack thereof is say 6 inches of Chobham versus six inches of rolled steel against a six-inch diamter shaped charge?

Against a six-inch diameter AP shell?

 

[Cook]

The title “Navalised Chobham Armour” had me picturing soldiers running round with very heavy stomach protection!

 

[David S Poepoe]

Just for shits and giggles, does anyone have a rough idea of how Chobham compares to rolled steel against various classes of weapons?

I know it's different for kinetic penetrators versus WW2 style AP bombs and shells versus a shaped charge weapon of given diameter.

In other words, how much better in terms of penetration or lack thereof is say 6 inches of Chobham versus six inches of rolled steel against a six-inch diamter shaped charge?

Against a six-inch diameter AP shell?

I think such an armour system will be quite dangerous to the ship and crew.

The more important objective is to destroy any inbound weapons well before it hits the ship or gets close.

 

[Cook]

How much does Chobham armour weigh by the way?

And if it gets introduced above the water line does this mean missiles drop below the waterline just prior to their end run? I’d hate to think what would happen if you used Chobham below the water line; anyone want to speculate on the effect of the reflected shock wave?