Af/Pak & Other News (6/5/2012)

[dump...@hotmail.com]

NATO strikes deals with Central Asian nations for withdrawal of
equipment from Afghanistan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/nato-strikes-deals-with-central-asian-nations-for-withdrawal-of-equipment-from-afghanistan/2012/06/04/gJQA2rqLDV_story.html




Pakistan: Al Qaeda No. 2 at house hit by US drone:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pakistan-al-qaeda-2-house-hit-drone-article-1.1090066



Pakistan conducts fifth missile test in weeks:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j5OgHffxX_L6RJvBFhY1Ad2moWhA?docId=CNG.3b858a39c055e210064efb69c69f22a2.561




Resupply ops bring critical supplies, boost morale in Afghanistan:

http://www.defencetalk.com/resupply-ops-bring-critical-supplies-boost-morale-in-afghanistan-42982/




Locals turn against Taliban in eastern Afghanistan:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/0604/Locals-turn-against-Taliban-in-eastern-Afghanistan



US Encourages India to Play Greater Role in Afghanistan :

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-encourages-india-to-play-greater-role-in-afghanistan/1150537.html




Army Wargame Wrestles With The World After Afghanistan:

http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/05/army-wargame-wrestles-with-airsea-battle-hybrid-threats/




India Plans To Launch First Military Satellite:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/India_Plans_To_Launch_First_Military_Satellite_999.html




Stratfor: The end of counterinsurgency and the scalable force:

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26006:stratfor-the-end-of-counterinsurgency-and-the-scalable-force&catid=32:military-art-a-science&Itemid=112



Mystery Iranian deaths amid shadow war:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mystery_Iranian_deaths_amid_shadow_war_999.html



Iraqi police put down prison riots in Baghdad:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2012/06/05/iraqi_police_put_down_prison_riot_in_baghdad/



Syria bars diplomats, gunships in action:

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE84S0P320120605



Syrian refugees flee violence, talk of mass graves:

http://dawn.com/2012/04/07/syrian-refugees-flee-violence-talk-of-mass-graves/



Turkish government readies for Syria buffer zone amid flow:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-government-readies-for-syria-buffer-zone-amid-flow.aspx?pageID=238&nID=16146&NewsCatID=338



First trial of senior official in Qaddafi regime opens:

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/05/218739.html



Future 'Black Swan' Class Sloop-of-War: A Group System:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DCDC/OurPublications/Concepts/Jcn112FutureblackSwanClassSloopofwarAGroupSystem.htm



Soviet Tanks As Far As The Eye Can See:

http://defensetech.org/2012/06/05/tanks-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see/



Finland – Army Tactical Missile Systems M-39 Block 1a:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/135718/finland-to-buy-atacms-missiles-in-%24132m-deal.html



PICTURES: RAAF receives final Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-raaf-receives-final-wedgetail-aewc-aircraft-372622/



Next Stage for Hawkei Army Vehicle:

http://www.defencetalk.com/next-stage-for-hawkei-army-vehicle-42974/



North Korea threatens to attack South Korean media:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/North_Korea_threatens_to_attack_South_Korean_media_999.html



Photo: Weapons testing by Wing Loong UAV:

http://alert5.com/2012/06/05/photo-weapons-testing-by-wing-loong-uav/



Republic of Korea – CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapons:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/135719/korea-to-buy-sensor_fuzed-weapons-for-%24325m.html



Exclusive Video: Life Aboard a Stealth Sub:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/video-mississippi-sub/




US spy satellite agency gives NASA 2 space telescopes:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/04/us-spy-satellite-agency-gives-nasa-2-space-telescopes-808435022/



Boeing Phantom Eye Completes First Autonomous Flight:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Phantom_Eye_Completes_First_Autonomous_Flight_999.html



‘Jersey Shore,’ Meet Robot War: How Reality TV Could Fix Drone Data
Glut:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/reality-tv-drone/



Lockheed Martin hopes to make Vigilant Watch sale within 15 months:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-hopes-to-make-vigilant-watch-sale-within-15-months-372616/



USAF wants to eliminate base amenities:

http://alert5.com/2012/06/05/usaf-wants-to-eliminate-base-amenities/



Navy, Marines Bet Big on Carrier for Troubled Stealth Jets:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/marine-aircraft-carrier/



White House To Reconsider Commercial Space Imagery Policy:

http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/04/white-house-to-reconsider-commercial-space-imagery-policy/



‘Siri, Kill That Guy’: Drones Might Get Voice Controls:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/voice-control-drones/



The Bone’s latest weapon? Text messages:

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/05/the-bones-latest-weapon-text-messages/



Flame Hijacks Microsoft Update to Spread Malware Disguised As Legit
Code:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/flame-microsoft-certificate/

[Andrew Swallow]

On 05/06/2012 19:09, dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Future 'Black Swan' Class Sloop-of-War: A Group System:
>
> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DCDC/OurPublications/Concepts/Jcn112FutureblackSwanClassSloopofwarAGroupSystem.htm

Sloop - that is a type of small warship I though had gone into history.

Note: The link points to the reasons and the specifications.

Andrew Swallow

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:41:33 +0100, Andrew Swallow

<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Sloop - that is a type of small warship I though had gone into history.

Oddly enough names and classifications are not carved in stone.

Eugene L Griessel

Every thing on earth and in the Universe has limits
except human stupidity - there is no limit to that.

[Andrew Swallow]

Well personally I prefer steel ships to stone ships. ;)

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 06/06/2012 13:32, Eugene Griessel wrote:

> Op Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:41:33 +0100, Andrew Swallow
> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Sloop - that is a type of small warship I though had gone into history.
>
> Oddly enough names and classifications are not carved in stone.
>
> Eugene L Griessel

I hope the ship designers realise that modern small arms include Rocket
Propelled Grenades (RPG), possible launched from speed boats.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

They aim to put mission changeable weapons, called packages, into 20
foot ISO containers. That will make them easier to move around the world.

It will be interesting to deliver a few empty containers with attachment
points for power etc. to armament factories and come back a year later
to see what gets fitted.

Andrew Swallow

[Dean]

On Jun 6, 8:32 am, Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
> Op Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:41:33 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>

> <am.swal...@btinternet.com>  wrote:

> >Sloop - that is a type of small warship I though had gone into history.
>
> Oddly enough names and classifications are not carved in stone.
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
>    Every thing on earth and in the Universe has limits
>    except human stupidity - there is no limit to that.

Not many ship type names make sense any more. Witness the new
DDG-1000 Zumwalt. I'd classify that thing as a BB which would
probably really piss off the Chinese.

[Dean]

On Jun 6, 10:58 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 13:32, Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> > Op Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:41:33 +0100, Andrew Swallow

> > <am.swal...@btinternet.com>   wrote:
>
> >> Sloop - that is a type of small warship I though had gone into history.
>
> > Oddly enough names and classifications are not carved in stone.
>
> > Eugene L Griessel
>
> I hope the ship designers realise that modern small arms include Rocket
> Propelled Grenades (RPG), possible launched from speed boats.
>
> Andrew Swallow

What are you suggesting? Armor?

[Andrew Swallow]

Thickness of armour.

I suspect that RPG armour is thicker than bullet armour but a lot
lighter than shell armour.

Andrew Swallow

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>
>>> I hope the ship designers realise that modern small arms include Rocket
>>> Propelled Grenades (RPG), possible launched from speed boats.

Son, they are well aware...why oh why would you doubt that?
;-)

[Dean]

With modern ships, I suspect you cannot provide enough armor without
sacrificing something else. Kevlar type armors would probably work
but tend to be expensive. If the RPG is a shaped charge, I am not
sure if Kevlar would work. Composite armor to defeat shaped charges
such as that on tanks is still quite heavy. The real defense is to not
allow such weapons to get within range.

[Keith W]

Wrong.

An RPG is simply a rocket propelled grenade which typically
has a HEAT round. The most effective way to protect against
them is to detonate the weapon away from the main structure.

In many cases this is no more substantial than a net or cage

http://www.qinetiq.com/what/products/Pages/RPG-defeat-protection-q-net.aspx
http://www.geobrugg.com/contento/security/English/Home/ShrapnelandRPGprotection/tabid/2569/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Keith

[Jim Yanik]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:zLidnQfFPbCA7VLS...@bt.com:

many USN ships have installed 25mm Bushmaster autocannon for close-in
defense against such threats. I doubt they would allow speedboats to get
that close,since RPGs have only about 900 yds range.
Plus the RPG shaped charges only make small holes,with some behind-armor
incendiary effects.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Jim Yanik]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in

news:-L-dnYIi_dKFKFLS...@bt.com:

the usual RPG-7 round will penetrate over a foot of RHA.
I doubt many warships today have that much armor on them.
but the RPG shaped charge only makes a little hole.
it might ruin a compartment,but I suspect there's fire suppression systems
that would take over.

[Dean]

On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:-L-dnYIi_dKFKFLS...@bt.com:

Suppose that little hole is in a harpoon canister or a helicopter
sitting on a flight deck?

[Kerryn Offord]

The chances of the RPG getting a hit that can project the jet into a
Harpoon canister (unless it is an above the deck canister) isn't very good.

The jet is unlikely to do much damage if the helicopter is in the
hanger. If it is on the flight deck then the explosion of the warhead on
contact is likely to do more than enough damage all on it's own -- to
the helicopter. But it won't do a lot of damage to the ship

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 05/06/2012 20:09, dump...@hotmail.com ha scritto:
> Future 'Black Swan' Class Sloop-of-War: A Group System:
>
> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DCDC/OurPublications/Concepts/Jcn112FutureblackSwanClassSloopofwarAGroupSystem.htm

Rather interesting the pair of .pdf in this; I noticed things related to
Italy whose need to be carefully assessed.

For now, I'll point the attention of s.m.n. fellows to para. 207 and the
first part of para. 208 in which are condensed all the actual, and not
propagandistic, reasons of the RN victory in the 1940s.

Good sense, at least for me, dictates that in the most recent (2011) Med
conflict something is happened whose has at least given uneasiness to RN
Admirals...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Bill]

In article <jqp7ql$fuh$1...@dont-email.me>, ka...@uclive.ac.nz says...

>
> On 6/7/2012 1:29 PM, Dean wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 4:57 pm, Jim Yanik<jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> >> Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:-L-dnYIi_dKFKFLS...@bt.com:
> >>

> >> the usual RPG-7 round will penetrate over a foot of RHA.
> >> I doubt many warships today have that much armor on them.
> >> but the RPG shaped charge only makes a little hole.
> >> it might ruin a compartment,but I suspect there's fire suppression systems
> >> that would take over.
> >

> > Suppose that little hole is in a harpoon canister or a helicopter
> > sitting on a flight deck?
>
>
> The chances of the RPG getting a hit that can project the jet into a
> Harpoon canister (unless it is an above the deck canister) isn't very good.
>
> The jet is unlikely to do much damage if the helicopter is in the
> hanger. If it is on the flight deck then the explosion of the warhead on
> contact is likely to do more than enough damage all on it's own -- to
> the helicopter. But it won't do a lot of damage to the ship

Didn't Royal Marines shoot the crap out of an Argentine warship with
such a device in 1982?

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:21:48 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> The chances of the RPG getting a hit that can project the jet into a
>> Harpoon canister (unless it is an above the deck canister) isn't very good.
>>
>> The jet is unlikely to do much damage if the helicopter is in the
>> hanger. If it is on the flight deck then the explosion of the warhead on
>> contact is likely to do more than enough damage all on it's own -- to
>> the helicopter. But it won't do a lot of damage to the ship
>
>Didn't Royal Marines shoot the crap out of an Argentine warship with
>such a device in 1982?

Amongst other things - they peppered it with all they had. An 84mm
Carl Gustav being the major weapon. It barely had the range - and was
on it's last legs when it hit the ship just above the waterline.
BTW - to the earlier poster - most Harpoons are in above deck
cannisters.

Eugene L Griessel

Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:48:56 +0100, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:

>Several hits on an Argentine Corvette Guerrico with an 84mm Carl Gustav,
>took out the 40 mm gun, one Exocet launcher and the 100 mm mounting.

Hmmmm - not really. They took out the 40mm gun crew with a gimpy.
The 100m gun was not hit - just the electrical cabling supplying it.
Neither was the Excocet actually hit - the Carl Gustav round hit the
hull below it - once again rendering it inoperable due to cable
damage.

Eugene L Griessel

Profanity is the language most programmers know best.

[Bill]

In article <v841t7hh3bqcgc2k2...@4ax.com>,
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...

It stopped the thing going bang, which is what actually matters.

Getting your warship shot to bits by two dozen bad tempered Royal
Marines equipped with nothing heavier than an anti-tank rocket has got
to be a complete career killer.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 7 Jun 2012 13:03:02 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Getting your warship shot to bits by two dozen bad tempered Royal
>Marines equipped with nothing heavier than an anti-tank rocket has got
>to be a complete career killer.

They weren't playing fair, sir!

Eugene L Griessel

Nothing is more dangerous than blind patriotism.

[Dean]

On Jun 7, 9:24 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:
> >Op Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:21:48 +0100, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>> The chances of the RPG getting a hit that can project the jet into a
> >>> Harpoon canister (unless it is an above the deck canister) isn't very good.
>
> >>> The jet is unlikely to do much damage if the helicopter is in the
> >>> hanger. If it is on the flight deck then the explosion of the warhead on
> >>> contact is likely to do more than enough damage all on it's own -- to
> >>> the helicopter. But it won't do a lot of damage to the ship
>
> >>Didn't Royal Marines shoot the crap out of an Argentine warship with
> >>such a device in  1982?
>
> >Amongst other things - they peppered it with all they had. An 84mm
> >Carl Gustav being the major weapon.  It barely had the range - and was
> >on it's last legs when it hit the ship just above the waterline.
> >BTW - to the earlier poster - most Harpoons are in above deck
> >cannisters.
>

> And, on US warships, at least, said canisters are pretty heavily
> armored.
>
> --
> "Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
>                     -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Are the Harpoon cannisters actually armored? I know the Tomahawk
launchers on the BBS and CGNs were referred to as ABLs...Armored Box
Launchers. Would the latter all be out of service now, replaced by VL
Tomahawks?

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:18:14 +0100, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:

>
>>
>> Hmmmm - not really. They took out the 40mm gun crew with a gimpy.
>> The 100m gun was not hit - just the electrical cabling supplying it.
>> Neither was the Excocet actually hit - the Carl Gustav round hit the
>> hull below it - once again rendering it inoperable due to cable
>> damage.
>

>OK on the 40mm but; quoting of of the RMs involved:
>
>"We then used a bazooka, but three out of five rounds didn't go off.
>If they had we'd have sunk it. But we put it out of action and it was
>listing at 30 degrees. We whacked out its Exocet launchers with rocket
>launchers and hit the 4in gun on the front and disabled it. We were
>putting sniper fire through the bridge so they didn't-know where they
>were going. "

Wishful thinking and the fog of war - unfortunately not borne out by
photographs of the ship immediately after the action. BTW The 4 inch
gun was back in action almost immediately after they cleared the bay
and firing rounds at shore positions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Georgias01.jpg

Picture of her immediately after the battle - notice the Excocet
launchers appear undamaged in this photograph. No 30 degree list
noticeable either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_South_Georgia



Eugene L Griessel

No matter what goes wrong, there is always somebody who knew it would.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 06/06/2012 21:53, Jim Yanik wrote:
> many USN ships have installed 25mm Bushmaster autocannon for close-in
> defense against such threats. I doubt they would allow speedboats to get
> that close,since RPGs have only about 900 yds range.

Hitting a speedboat with an unstabilised weapon and Kentucky windage is,
shall we say, non-trivial - hence why the RN has switched its 30mm gun
mounts to ASCG (with a proper fire-control system, rather than a gunner
using a Ring sight) in order to get more hits further out.

> Plus the RPG shaped charges only make small holes,with some behind-armor
> incendiary effects.

Unless they use one of the HE-FRAG or thermobaric variants, which would
be rather more effective against a ship-type target. (Still unlikely to
be mission-kills, but more likely to do significant damage)


--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 06/06/2012 20:52, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> I suspect that RPG armour is thicker than bullet armour but a lot
> lighter than shell armour.

A HEAT round from an RPG will poke a hole through over a foot of rolled
homogenous armour (though it may not achieve much inside the ship once
it does). Bar armour might be a better option, but it'll play hell with
your signature.

Given the area of ship to protect, though, enough armour to be useful
even against HE-FRAG RPGs ends up weighing a *lot*, which is topweight
that can't be employed for anything more useful (like weapons,
countermeasures, sensors...) and is of frankly marginal utility. Yes, in
a diplomatic standoff it might be discomfiting to have a ship RPGed live
on Al-Arabiya TV, but she'll still float, move and fight afterwards.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 07/06/2012 02:29, Dean wrote:
> Suppose that little hole is in a harpoon canister or a helicopter
> sitting on a flight deck?

Harpoon canister - one missile out of commission. There's a reason we
spent a lot of time, effort and money on "insensitive munitions" - it's
not that they never call you in the morning or forget your anniversary,
it's that they don't go "bang" even when provoked.

Helicopter on the flight deck - not very good news, which is why the
helicopter is better used to be flying above said speedboats with the
observer in one door with a M3M heavy machine gun and a Maritime Sniper
Team in the other door. Or, the helo's in the hangar, which will provide
entire yards of spaced armour protection from RPG fire. Oddly enough,
the ship's flight don't like leaving their bird out in the open for long
periods (apart from anything else, the clubswinger wants the flight deck
for circuit training...)

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:43:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"

One is moved to think of those torpedo nets WW1 battleships employed.
A fine mesh wire skirt hung about the hull when necessary should do
much to discourage HEAT rounds from getting to where they could do
much damage, methinks.

Eugene L Griessel

The Trojans lost the war because they fell for a really dumb trick.

[Paul J. Adam]

On 07/06/2012 11:21, Bill wrote:

> Didn't Royal Marines shoot the crap out of an Argentine warship with
> such a device in 1982?

ARA Guerrico, hit by a couple of 84mm rounds from a Carl Gustav, a 66mm
Light Antitank Weapon or two, well over a thousand rounds of 7.62mm, and
would have received a kitchen sink as well if the Royals had one handy...

She withdrew out of their range in good order, and instead of brassing
them off at close range with her 20mm and heavy machine guns, started
laying down spreadlines with her 100mm main gun instead; the Royals
sensibly offered terms for surrender at that point, having made as bold
a gesture as their armament allowed.

Good effort by the Marines, but the corvette was careless and arrogant
and still wasn't in any danger of being sunk.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:51:41 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"

Agreed abou the careless and arrogant - her captain expected no
resistance. Or no weapons worth worrying about. Of course gentlemen
do not shoot at ships with anti-tank weapons, it's just not cricket!

Eugene L Griessel

If only women came with pull-down menus and on-line help.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:33:08 +0200, Eugene Griessel

<eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote:

>Op Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:18:14 +0100, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Hmmmm - not really. They took out the 40mm gun crew with a gimpy.
>>> The 100m gun was not hit - just the electrical cabling supplying it.
>>> Neither was the Excocet actually hit - the Carl Gustav round hit the
>>> hull below it - once again rendering it inoperable due to cable
>>> damage.
>>
>>OK on the 40mm but; quoting of of the RMs involved:
>>
>>"We then used a bazooka, but three out of five rounds didn't go off.
>>If they had we'd have sunk it. But we put it out of action and it was
>>listing at 30 degrees. We whacked out its Exocet launchers with rocket
>>launchers and hit the 4in gun on the front and disabled it. We were
>>putting sniper fire through the bridge so they didn't-know where they
>>were going. "
>
>Wishful thinking and the fog of war - unfortunately not borne out by
>photographs of the ship immediately after the action. BTW The 4 inch
>gun was back in action almost immediately after they cleared the bay
>and firing rounds at shore positions.
>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Georgias01.jpg
>
>Picture of her immediately after the battle - notice the Excocet
>launchers appear undamaged in this photograph. No 30 degree list
>noticeable either.

Interestingly the twin 40mm gun seen in the picture came off a
President class Type 12 frigate of the South African navy. When the
ship was built for the SA Navy the Bofors AS rocket launcher was not
available to South Africa so these antiquated twin bofors guns were
hauled out of storage, given an overhaul and shipped off to France for
the two corvettes building. The French threw up their hands in horror
when they saw the things I'm told!

Eugene L Griessel

Is it not rather malicious that 'dyslexia' is so hard to spell?

[peter skelton]

"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message
news:tu42t7djcgcm459ca...@4ax.com...

Torpedo nets fell out of favour because they tended to fall into propellers.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Thu, 7 Jun 2012 17:24:02 -0400, "peter skelton"

These should not dangle in the water. Merely hang from outriggers on
the deck to the waterline.

Eugene L Griessel

I live every day of my life as if it were my last.
That's why my place is always so untidy. You don't want to
spend the last day of your life tidying up, do you?

[Kerryn Offord]

Re: Most in above deck canisters. True. I was thinking that maybe it was
capable of vertical launch.

Missile boats to frigates at least don't have the volume available a guess.

Hmm.. What are the chances of an RPG hitting a cylinder at the right
angle so that it isn't deflected even before the jet can be initiated?

[Andrew Swallow]

On 06/06/2012 21:24, Keith W wrote:

> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 06/06/2012 17:49, Dean wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 10:58 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06/06/2012 13:32, Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Op Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:41:33 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>>> <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Sloop - that is a type of small warship I though had gone into
>>>>>> history.
>>>>
>>>>> Oddly enough names and classifications are not carved in stone.
>>>>
>>>>> Eugene L Griessel
>>>>
>>>> I hope the ship designers realise that modern small arms include
>>>> Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG), possible launched from speed boats.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>
>>> What are you suggesting? Armor?
>>
>> Thickness of armour.
>>

>> I suspect that RPG armour is thicker than bullet armour but a lot
>> lighter than shell armour.
>>

>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Wrong.
>

Make that correct. A net is thinner than shell (tank) armour. The
shrapnel effect means that the armour beneath still needs to be bullet
proof.

> An RPG is simply a rocket propelled grenade which typically
> has a HEAT round. The most effective way to protect against
> them is to detonate the weapon away from the main structure.
>
> In many cases this is no more substantial than a net or cage
>
> http://www.qinetiq.com/what/products/Pages/RPG-defeat-protection-q-net.aspx
> http://www.geobrugg.com/contento/security/English/Home/ShrapnelandRPGprotection/tabid/2569/language/en-US/Default.aspx
>
> Keith
>
>

[Andrew Swallow]

On 08/06/2012 00:39, Kerryn Offord wrote:
{snip}

>
> Hmm.. What are the chances of an RPG hitting a cylinder at the right
> angle so that it isn't deflected even before the jet can be initiated?
>

Sods law applies.


If the probability is 1/100 then they will fire 101 RPGs at you.

Andrew Swallow

[Jim Yanik]

Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote in news:jqqupo$j99$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

>
>>
>> Hmmmm - not really. They took out the 40mm gun crew with a gimpy.
>> The 100m gun was not hit - just the electrical cabling supplying it.
>> Neither was the Excocet actually hit - the Carl Gustav round hit the
>> hull below it - once again rendering it inoperable due to cable
>> damage.
>

> OK on the 40mm but; quoting of of the RMs involved:
>
> "We then used a bazooka, but three out of five rounds didn't go off.
> If they had we'd have sunk it. But we put it out of action and it was
> listing at 30 degrees. We whacked out its Exocet launchers with rocket
> launchers and hit the 4in gun on the front and disabled it. We were
> putting sniper fire through the bridge so they didn't-know where they
> were going. "
>

> Jef
>

what were the sailors on the ship under attack doing while all this was
going on?

do you think that the enemy is going to get more than 1-2 shots off if the
ship trains a 25mm autocannon on them?

[Jim Yanik]

Eugene Griessel <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in
news:tu42t7djcgcm459ca...@4ax.com:

for that matter,you could install close range active protection such as
ARENA or others that destroy the RPG round in flight. it would be a lot
easier.

[Jim Yanik]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in news:LfydnfoB-
OSb0UzSnZ2d...@bt.com:

you deserve it if you let that many RPG gunners get that close to your
ship..... ;-}

[Andrew Swallow]

Metal nets have a powerful radar signature.
making the nets out of something that is:
a. very strong,
b. does not burn
c. and does not reflect radar would be advisable.

Andrew Swallow

[Paul J. Adam]

On 08/06/2012 01:56, Jim Yanik wrote:
> what were the sailors on the ship under attack doing while all this was
> going on?

Trying not to be hit by a hailstorm of small-arms fire while they withdrew?

> do you think that the enemy is going to get more than 1-2 shots off if the
> ship trains a 25mm autocannon on them?

If you're able to make the gunners duck rather than aim, the 25mm cannon
is dead weight, and dispersed infantry ashore make for difficult and
dangerous targets if you're foolish enough to close within their range.

"I have a large-calibre weapon and am therefore invincible" is not a new
delusion, and Valhalla is *full* of warriors whose last words were
"...what?"

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:10:16 +0100, Andrew Swallow

They would be deployed only rarely on very special occasions when a
ship is forced to work in close proximity to where HEAT rounds are in
range. Like say 0.0001% of a warship's life?

Eugene L Griessel

My pessimism extends to the point of even suspecting the sincerity
of other pessimists.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Fri, 08 Jun 2012 02:10:16 +0100, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Metal nets have a powerful radar signature.

I once saw a missile decoy trialled - seventies - which consisted of a
bunch of danbuoys supporting a ship-shaped metal net. You chuccked
the thing off the stern, danbuoy by danbuoy, as you moved forward and
then ducked behind it once it was deployed - making a sexual departure
in the direction of away.

Ultimately the problems were bulk storage and slowness in effectively
deploying it. Another interesting idea mooted - although whether it
was ever proceeded with in trials I doubt - was a kite (small hang
glider thing) deployed from the stern which sprinkled aluminium
crystals, also producing a ship shaped decoy. We had chaff rockets
that made a ship-shaped decoy and ultimately a UPV that electronically
mimicked a ship and could be manouvered around so that it did not just
hang there statically.

Eugene L Griessel

In any organization there will always be one person who knows
exactly what is going on. This person must be fired.

[Keith W]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 21:24, Keith W wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2012 17:49, Dean wrote:
>>>> On Jun 6, 10:58 am, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/06/2012 13:32, Eugene Griessel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Op Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:41:33 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>>>> <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sloop - that is a type of small warship I though had gone into
>>>>>>> history.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oddly enough names and classifications are not carved in stone.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eugene L Griessel
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope the ship designers realise that modern small arms include
>>>>> Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG), possible launched from speed
>>>>> boats. Andrew Swallow
>>>>
>>>> What are you suggesting? Armor?
>>>
>>> Thickness of armour.
>>>
>>> I suspect that RPG armour is thicker than bullet armour but a lot
>>> lighter than shell armour.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>
> Make that correct. A net is thinner than shell (tank) armour. The
> shrapnel effect means that the armour beneath still needs to be bullet
> proof.
>

Which means contrary to your assertion the armour is NOT thicker
than that normally used to resist small arms fire.

Keith

[Bill]

In article <XnsA06BD514E1D48...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>
> Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote in news:jqqupo$j99$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Hmmmm - not really. They took out the 40mm gun crew with a gimpy.
> >> The 100m gun was not hit - just the electrical cabling supplying it.
> >> Neither was the Excocet actually hit - the Carl Gustav round hit the
> >> hull below it - once again rendering it inoperable due to cable
> >> damage.
> >
> > OK on the 40mm but; quoting of of the RMs involved:
> >
> > "We then used a bazooka, but three out of five rounds didn't go off.
> > If they had we'd have sunk it. But we put it out of action and it was
> > listing at 30 degrees. We whacked out its Exocet launchers with rocket
> > launchers and hit the 4in gun on the front and disabled it. We were
> > putting sniper fire through the bridge so they didn't-know where they
> > were going. "
> >
> > Jef
> >
>
> what were the sailors on the ship under attack doing while all this was
> going on?

Ducking probably.

> do you think that the enemy is going to get more than 1-2 shots off if the
> ship trains a 25mm autocannon on them?

You could spend all day shooting 25mm cannon at two dozen infantrymen
hiding in holes without stopping them shooting back.

If you were daft enough to come within rifle range you could well go
through a dozen men on your 25mm gun as well...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:57:36 +0100, Jeff <je...@jsystems.com> wrote:

>
>>> "We then used a bazooka, but three out of five rounds didn't go off.
>>> If they had we'd have sunk it. But we put it out of action and it was
>>> listing at 30 degrees. We whacked out its Exocet launchers with rocket
>>> launchers and hit the 4in gun on the front and disabled it. We were
>>> putting sniper fire through the bridge so they didn't-know where they
>>> were going. "
>>
>> Wishful thinking and the fog of war - unfortunately not borne out by
>> photographs of the ship immediately after the action. BTW The 4 inch
>> gun was back in action almost immediately after they cleared the bay
>> and firing rounds at shore positions.
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Georgias01.jpg
>>
>> Picture of her immediately after the battle - notice the Excocet
>> launchers appear undamaged in this photograph. No 30 degree list
>> noticeable either.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_South_Georgia
>>
>

>You have to bear in mind that a significant number of statements in the
>wiki article come from Argentine sources, so the fog of propaganda have
>to be taken into account. Also the photo is very well cropped removing
>most of one of the launchers.
>
>Other contemporary sources quote 3 (or more) 'rocket' hits on the
>corvette, one on the hull, one on an Exocet launcher and one on the
>100mm mount.
>
>LAW's were also used so not all of the hits may have been with the Carl
>Gustav.
>
>Summing up the sources that I have, it seems to be 2 hits with Carl
>Gustav, one on the waterline and one on, or adjacent to, an Exocet
>launcher, and at least 2 hits with 66mm LAWs, plus of course GPMG and
>rifle fire.
>
>One other point to note is that some accounts state that the 100mm did
>not jam on the first round, but it was initially ineffective due to lack
>of depression, only hitting the hills behind the marines' position,
>before it was put out of action.

I have other pictures of her - that was the only one I could find
on-line. No significant damage to Exocet launcher visible on any of
those photos. Maybe a few bullet holes - but of course those are not
visible. The scecond 84 mm HEAT hit was significantly below the
Exocet launchers. "We whacked out its Exocet _launchers_ with rocket
launchers" is therefore pure bullshit. "hit the 4in gun on the front
and disabled it" is also crap as the gun was firing soon afterwards.
No evidence of her listing (what would make her list? You do not sink
ships by making holes above the waterline to let in air - below the
waterline to let in water is what does the trick). That particular
class of vessel can completely flood 4 compartments (excluding engine
room) and still float and fight. 84 mm and 66 mm holes are easily
dealt with by a DC bung knocked in. Ditto 7.62 holes.

So what of your original quote remains valid?


Eugene L Griessel

You can't be careful on a skateboard.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
news:qc2dnQzURP6QzEzS...@bt.com...

Arguing with someone who thinks that suspending something over the water
will prevent it from falling into the water at an inconvenient moment is a
bit of a waste of time.

Peter

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:59:46 -0400, "peter skelton"

Arguing with you Peter has been a waste of time for quite a while.
You are not going to be sailing around with the damned things
deployed. You will deploy them only when the chance of such an attack
becomes possible - or is that concept too hard to grasp? Why do I
bother talking to a pontificating landlubber...

Back in the killfile.

Eugene L Griessel

If at first you don't succeed, give up; no use being a damn fool.

[peter skelton]

"Eugene Griessel" wrote in message

news:9lu3t71g02cthbpb0...@4ax.com...

How does that differ from the torpedo nets? To be of any use at all, they
had to be in a position from which they could be deployed reasonably
quickly. Unfortunately, that put them in a position where enemy action or
bad weather could have unfortunate consequences. I'm not aware of an
incident where a deployed net caused trouble in action, undeployed ones on
the other hand. . .

[Jim Wilkins]

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:jqt3cl$ue1$1...@dont-email.me...

> ...
> How does that differ from the torpedo nets? To be of any use at all,
> they had to be in a position from which they could be deployed
> reasonably quickly. Unfortunately, that put them in a position where
> enemy action or bad weather could have unfortunate consequences. I'm
> not aware of an incident where a deployed net caused trouble in
> action, undeployed ones on the other hand. . .

What happens when an RPG hits a double hull?

jsw

[Andrew Swallow]

Two layers are thicker than one.

[Keith W]

peter skelton wrote:
> "Eugene Griessel" wrote in message
>

>> Arguing with you Peter has been a waste of time for quite a while.
> You are not going to be sailing around with the damned things
> deployed. You will deploy them only when the chance of such an attack
> becomes possible - or is that concept too hard to grasp? Why do I
> bother talking to a pontificating landlubber...
>
> How does that differ from the torpedo nets?

Torpedo nets extend below the waterline, RPG nets
do not. RPG nets are being fitted to vulnerable areas
such as the bridge on merchant vessels operating in
areas where pirates operate.

http://www.vesselprotectionsolutions.com/geobrugg/
http://www.safezoneballistics.com/product/Ships/Ship-Security.php

Keith

[Keith W]

Think about what you just said and spot the error in your logic

Keith

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

I give up...where's the error?

[Jim H.]

The pic in your first link of the mesh/net protection on a ship's
bridge makes my think of a pic I once saw of a Russian tank entering
Berlin in the last days of WWII. It was a T-34/85 with bare bed
springs fastened to the sides and turret for armor against
panzerfausts and other shaped charge weapons. It sure looked odd to my
then-ignorant eyes.

Jim H.

[peter skelton]

"Keith W" wrote in message news:cWqAr.21855$kM1....@fx18.am4...

OFCS Keith congratulations on snipping the point at issue and expressing
what Gene had to say when he came in.

[Dean]

You ought to qualify that statement. Two 1/2inch layers are not
thicker than one 1 inch layer. Furthermore, I will guess that two
1/2inch layers are not even equivalent to one 1 inch layer.

[Keith W]

You asked the question sport, its not my problem if you don't like the
answer.

Keith

[peter skelton]

"Keith W" wrote in message news:s%tAr.18786$B64....@fx26.am4...

It was a rhetorical question which I went on to answer accurately. I've
already said what was wrong with your answer. Do try to keep up.

[Andrew Swallow]

*Both* layers form part of the armour.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

OK. It is standard hull thickness Vs. standard hull thickness + RPG net.

Andrew Swallow

[Kerryn Offord]

On 6/9/2012 11:59 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 08/06/2012 21:00, Dean wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 12:31 pm, Andrew Swallow<am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On 08/06/2012 08:55, Keith W wrote:
>>>

<SNIP

>>>>>>> Thickness of armour.
>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that RPG armour is thicker than bullet armour but a lot
>>>>>>> lighter than shell armour.
>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Swallow
>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>>> Make that correct. A net is thinner than shell (tank) armour. The
>>>>> shrapnel effect means that the armour beneath still needs to be bullet
>>>>> proof.
>>>
>>>> Which means contrary to your assertion the armour is NOT thicker
>>>> than that normally used to resist small arms fire.
>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>
>>> Two layers are thicker than one.
>>
>> You ought to qualify that statement. Two 1/2inch layers are not
>> thicker than one 1 inch layer. Furthermore, I will guess that two
>> 1/2inch layers are not even equivalent to one 1 inch layer.
>
> OK. It is standard hull thickness Vs. standard hull thickness + RPG net.
>
> Andrew Swallow

The RPG net is mostly "air", so has "no" thickness.

[Keith W]

I pointed out examples where such nets are being used

Reality trumps your theories I am afraid.

Keith

[peter skelton]

"Keith W" wrote in message news:i8FAr.11888$2l2....@fx01.am4...

SO what you were doing was erecting a strawman and trashing it. Now it all
makes sense.

(Just what theory of mine did you trump?)

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval Andrew Swallow twisted the electrons to say:
> On 08/06/2012 00:39, Kerryn Offord wrote:
> {snip}
> > angle so that it isn't deflected even before the jet can be initiated?
> Sods law applies.
> If the probability is 1/100 then they will fire 101 RPGs at you.

... and if the odds are a million to one against, then they'll succeed
nine times out of ten! (With due thanks to Mr Pratchett.)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Eugene Griessel]

Op Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:19:44 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn

<palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In sci.military.naval Andrew Swallow twisted the electrons to say:
>> On 08/06/2012 00:39, Kerryn Offord wrote:
>> {snip}
>> > angle so that it isn't deflected even before the jet can be initiated?
>> Sods law applies.
>> If the probability is 1/100 then they will fire 101 RPGs at you.
>
>... and if the odds are a million to one against, then they'll succeed
>nine times out of ten! (With due thanks to Mr Pratchett.)

By long and bitter experience I have determined that when one has a
50/50 chance then one will lose at lest 90% of the time.

Eugene L Griessel

Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 06/06/2012 22:24, Keith W ha scritto:

> Wrong.
>
> An RPG is simply a rocket propelled grenade which typically
> has a HEAT round. The most effective way to protect against
> them is to detonate the weapon away from the main structure.
>
> In many cases this is no more substantial than a net or cage

or simply applying above water what is already applied below water
(antitorpedo spaces) and, in the end, the probability that the Munroe
jet hits critical points in a warship is practically nil , barring
faulty SOP and freak hits...

Bring back the cellular raft ? (an Italian invention, by the way....)

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 07/06/2012 03:29, Dean ha scritto:

> Suppose that little hole is in a harpoon canister or a helicopter
> sitting on a flight deck?

explosions follow the path of least resistance, and your cases will end
in a rather spectacular fireball but limited damages & casualties; the
only place that a RPG jet can do massive & catastrophic damage are the
obvious one, the powder magazine, whose is either well BWL or around the
(unmanned) mount and modern powder is *much* less sensitive than the
cordite of yore...

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 08/06/2012 03:13, Paul J. Adam ha scritto:

> On 08/06/2012 01:56, Jim Yanik wrote:
>> what were the sailors on the ship under attack doing while all this was
>> going on?
>

> Trying not to be hit by a hailstorm of small-arms fire while they withdrew?

>
>> do you think that the enemy is going to get more than 1-2 shots off if
>> the
>> ship trains a 25mm autocannon on them?
>

> If you're able to make the gunners duck rather than aim, the 25mm cannon
> is dead weight, and dispersed infantry ashore make for difficult and
> dangerous targets if you're foolish enough to close within their range.

whose seems was the case of ARA Guerrico, but seems to that the main
point of the swarm tactics is overwhelming the active defenses, so if
the autocannon is trained to one whose even never get to fire, the boats
on 40-60 or more bearing away will have fired a good chunk of their RPGs...

so I suspect that in the end, the response to the tactical issue will be
the same old one, increasing the light battery up to the point of
near-capsizing, as happened on both sides in the Pacific War.....

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 07/06/2012 22:51, Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
> Op Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:43:10 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2012 20:52, Andrew Swallow wrote:

>>> I suspect that RPG armour is thicker than bullet armour but a lot
>>> lighter than shell armour.
>>

>> A HEAT round from an RPG will poke a hole through over a foot of rolled
>> homogenous armour (though it may not achieve much inside the ship once
>> it does). Bar armour might be a better option, but it'll play hell with
>> your signature.
>>
>> Given the area of ship to protect, though, enough armour to be useful
>> even against HE-FRAG RPGs ends up weighing a *lot*, which is topweight
>> that can't be employed for anything more useful (like weapons,
>> countermeasures, sensors...) and is of frankly marginal utility. Yes, in
>> a diplomatic standoff it might be discomfiting to have a ship RPGed live
>> on Al-Arabiya TV, but she'll still float, move and fight afterwards.
>
> One is moved to think of those torpedo nets WW1 battleships employed.
> A fine mesh wire skirt hung about the hull when necessary should do
> much to discourage HEAT rounds from getting to where they could do
> much damage, methinks.

for sure french will never take in consideration a thing encouraging the
jinx their lone capital ship has... Granted, an WWI-style anti-RPG net
has the advantage of keeping damages out, but the entrophy intrinsic of
nets don't allow a full automation of the folding process, and at least
is needed watching the folding and keep an unjam detail ready...

If was badly needed a "bring back something" argument, I suggest the
1880s cellular raft, whose looks to me the best answer from past...

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 07/06/2012 23:24, peter skelton ha scritto:

> One is moved to think of those torpedo nets WW1 battleships employed.
> A fine mesh wire skirt hung about the hull when necessary should do
> much to discourage HEAT rounds from getting to where they could do
> much damage, methinks.
>

> Torpedo nets fell out of favour because they tended to fall into
> propellers.

and this is why I think France will never take this solution in
consideration... CdG's shaft and screws are "proven" jinxed....

Also, antitorpedo nets was never loved by crews because the folding and
unfolding drill was second only to the coaling drill in annoyance

Also, The nature of a net disallow full automation, needing at very
minimum someone on the bridge wing or similiar vantage place with sharp
eyes and a finger on the "emergency stop" button and an unjam (actually,
untangle...) detail ready...

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 08/06/2012 21:03, Jim H. ha scritto:

> The pic in your first link of the mesh/net protection on a ship's
> bridge makes my think of a pic I once saw of a Russian tank entering
> Berlin in the last days of WWII. It was a T-34/85 with bare bed
> springs fastened to the sides and turret for armor against
> panzerfausts and other shaped charge weapons. It sure looked odd to my
> then-ignorant eyes.

I visualize this oddiness.. let's call it the russian interpretation of
"don't tread on me"; I assume that the outwards ends of the springs was
sharpened, if not for sake of keeping a martial enough appareance, relax
the political commissars's raised brows ("comrade, if you think on it a
bit, in these very close quarters, nazis can climb up and throw inside a
potato masher....") and with average Ivan's attitude to ride tanks,
frontoviks surely decides that specific tank is also a "wagon-lit" (and
figuring out in the morning what bunch of sleeping soldiers is actually
their tank...)

with hindsight, albeit rather damaging in the hand of the free world
press, the idea should be kept, the potential usefulness decades later
Budapest and Praga is obvious....

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 06/06/2012 18:48, Dean ha scritto:

> Not many ship type names make sense any more. Witness the new
> DDG-1000 Zumwalt. I'd classify that thing as a BB which would
> probably really piss off the Chinese.

or better, an pre-dreadnought BB (My usual jab on the bow and tumblehome ;))

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[Keith W]

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Il 06/06/2012 22:24, Keith W ha scritto:
>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> An RPG is simply a rocket propelled grenade which typically
>> has a HEAT round. The most effective way to protect against
>> them is to detonate the weapon away from the main structure.
>>
>> In many cases this is no more substantial than a net or cage
>
> or simply applying above water what is already applied below water
> (antitorpedo spaces)

Which is what the net achieves by detonating the warhead before
it hits the hull

> and, in the end, the probability that the Munroe
> jet hits critical points in a warship is practically nil , barring
> faulty SOP and freak hits...
>

The real risk for merchant ships and small warships is an rpg
hitting the bridge which is why most rpg nets are fitted to
the bridge and crews quarters.

Keith