Missiles

I hate to burst peoples' bubbles, but *no* HE or HEAP missiles will be
used in ship to ship combat.

There are 3 velocities one has to consider:

1. closing velocity
2. the velocity at which the *kinetic* energy of 1 kilo of *anything*
   exceeds the energy release by detonating 1 kilo of your best high
   explosive.
3. detonating velocity. This is the speed at which a detonation wave
   propogates thru a high explosive.

I can just about *guarantee* that detonating velocity is *far* below
closing velocity. Which means that shaped charges are useles, as the
missile impact will be moving faster than the detonation of the
explosive. This kills HEAP and doesn't  help HE much either.

And I'm willing to bet that velocity #2 is below closing velocity in
most cases as well. Which again makes HE a waste of time!

I suggest that when evaluating kinetic kill weapons for use against
ships, you look into the studies done on protection against meteorites.
You *don't* want heavy armor. You want something thin and replaceable.
The idea is that small objects will vaporize themselves and a portion of
the foil shield, but that there's enough space between the "foil" and
the real hull that the fireball won't contact it.

This only helps for projectiles rather smaller than we'd be using. So
you are going to have the "cannister" projectiles "cratering" the hull.
And if they punch through, they'll either create one *hell* of a shock
wave in the atmosphere of the ship, or keep punching holes in anything
that gets in their way until they are slowed to  bullet velocities, or
have completely vaporized.

Your several inches of armor could result in *more* damage than an
*unarmored* vessel would recieve, simply because more of the projectiles
KE would be transferred to the vessel!

Also check the railgun studies. I seriously doubt that the tank studies
apply when dealing with projectiles that are several orders of
magnitude faster *and* several orders of magnitude heavier. The railgun studies are getting into the low end of the velocity range. Only studies of meteor craters deal with KE values we have here.

*Very* rough calculations follow based on the estimated energy release
that created the Barringer Crater in Arizona, and the cube-root-of power
crater size formula. (Barrinnger Crater is 1.2 km in dia, and estimated that it took 7.1e22 ergs to create)

For a 5 ton projectile,

V (g-hr) (m/sec)   KE(ergs) (% of BC) kilotons   diameter(meters)
   1      3.528e3  3.112e19     .04     .7 kT        91
   2      7.056e3  1.245e20     .18    3.0 kT       145
   3     10.584e3  2.801e20     .39    6.7 kT       190
   4     14.112e3  4.979e20     .70     12 kT       230
   5     17.640e3  7.779e20    1.1      19 kT       267
   6     21.168e3  1.120e21    1.6      27 kT       301
   7     24.696e3  1.525e21    2.1      37 kT       334
   8     28.224e3  1.991e21    2.8      48 kT       365
   9     31.752e3  2.520e21    3.5      60 kT       394
  10     35.280e3  3.112e21    4.4      75 kT       423
  11     38.808e3  3.756e21    5.3      90 kT       451
  12     42.336e3  4.481e21    3.3     110 kT       478

  47.8  168.522e3  7.1e22    100       1.7 MT      1200   :-)

These figures should give an idea of just what sort of forces we are
discussing. No *possible* chemical explosive will even be noticed in
this sort of energy release.

BTW, for a 5 *gram* projectile, we get 1 millionth the energy, or
1/100th the diameter. So change the diameters above to cm. Which means
that 5 gm  projectile (a BB) at the veocity give by a mere 1 g for 1
hour, will blast a 91 cm crater in solid rock. And likely do something
similar im armor.  How many 5 gm BBs can a 7 ton missile carry and how
large a volume will they fill at "optimum" dispersal?

This may seem extreeme for a "mere" 7/10ths of a kilo of TNT equivalent.
But don't forget that is has a *much* higher brisance and is
concentrated on a *much* smaller area.

(and 5 kilo projectiles are 1/1000th energy and the craters are 1/10th
the size :-)
- --
uucp: [email removed]
Internet: [email removed]