Carrier Damage

[Shadow KT]

Hey, with all these naval assets coming along in DCS, I was testing out how much damage the Carriers can take.

 

My question is how much damage can we expect from a carrier to take, before it sinks ?

 

Does it matter where we shoot it ?

 

I was doing test which kinda surprised me.

 

Ow and maybe a bug to add here as well... It seems like naval units do not have health bars unlike other ground units.

 

My test was done with the A-10 @30000ft

 

I was using the GBU-31 with the penetration warhead (the bunker busting version with the pointy nose)

 

That is a 2000lb bomb (almost 1 ton) with almost half a ton of explosive in it (plus it has the added penetration)

 

It took me 8 hits with that bomb to "kill" the ship.

 

Is this normal ? 8 direct hits on the top deck, with smaller bombs it takes even more.

 

I know that in reality you will never get the chance to drop a GBU-31 from an A-10 on top of a CV, but this was done for testing purposes.

 

 

The Stenis seems to take more damage compared to the Kuznetsov.

 

Track and Mission attached:

 

[ATTACH]187057[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]187052[/ATTACH]

[Zayets]

Seems legit. A ship, a huge one, have lots of compartments not communicating with the other. You may flood one but ship will still be afloat.

[crazyeddie]

Until somebody actually sinks one of them its hard to tell, Tirpitz was sunk with Tallboys, lots of them, and I'm guessing a modern carrier will be harder to sink with conventional small weapons, so its going to take something with huge destructive power to cripple the internal structures and roll one of them over.

 

Such weapons are around, or soon will be.

[Shadow KT]

Until somebody actually sinks one of them its hard to tell, Tirpitz was sunk with Tallboys, lots of them, and I'm guessing a modern carrier will be harder to sink with conventional small weapons, so its going to take something with huge destructive power to cripple the internal structures and roll one of them over.

 

Such weapons are around, or soon will be.

 

Well, I wouldn't call the GBU-31 a small weapon. A ton of a bomb half of which is explosive made to destroy underground reinforced bunkers. Combine the kinetic and explosive damage it can do, not a small bomb.

 

Don't quote me on this, but aren't ship decks relatively thin. I am talking about 8 bombs which can go trough underground reinforced bunkers.

[probad]

lmao if we were so smart as to be able to simulate through all this stuff with our own heads r&d wouldn't be a thing

 

the real world is full of all sorts of weird little gotchas that our minds dont want to account for. it's totally possible a gbu-31 would just completely overpenetrate the entire ship and leave a relatively minor hole in a compartment that will be sealed off.

 

RcsorqnsbRU

just one of the many examples where reality slaps theory around

[Shadow KT]

Hah, that video made me chuckle....

 

Yea, you might be right with the over penetration, would explain why the GBU-10s made her catch fire quicker.

 

Another fella tried sinking the Kuznetsov with GBU-16s which are 1000lbs bombs (half of the GBU31) and he claims to have taken him 18 bombs to do so.

 

I definitely left some gaping holes on the deck tho, that is for sure. I wonder if you try and land on it, will it have an effect.

 

Well this is what this thread is about... discussing what we should expect. I am not saying I am right, I was just surprised and seeking more opinions on the subject.

 

Thanks

Edited June 9, 2018 by Shadow KT

[ouPhrontis]

Large ships would probably be rendered combat ineffective when hitting it multiple times, long before it's sunk.

[probad]

only thing i want to leave as food for thought is that i think there's a popular tendency to grossly overestimate the destructive power of explosive blasts.

silkworm ashms are about 1000lb warhead yield yet it took 3 to sink the eilat which was less than 2000tons, small by even modern frigate standards.

 

as seen with the sheffield, fires are the real killers. something as large as a carrier has extensive firefighting capability, though.

Edited June 9, 2018 by probad

[Shadow KT]

And again, thread is all about.. as I have already written... what should we expect.

 

One of the reasons I picked the GBU-31V is just to make sure that the bomb doesn't just blow up on the deck but goes right in and blows up the internals.

 

Obviously in DCS "killing" a CV means sinking it, but if you blow up all the internals. Just imagine a bomb going in the hanger bay blowing up half the jets in there and shifting them around, putting them one over the other or one of the bombs hits a munition storage and it sets off a chain reaction.

 

lol can you imagine a bunker buster JDAM just over penetrating the whole ship and going trough the reactor core :lol:

Edited June 9, 2018 by Shadow KT

[ouPhrontis]

Perhaps we could wish for some model degradation and depending on what hit it; it putting up less of a fight, or being less useful at its given task etc... if that's not already modelled.

 

Perhaps it's already possible to tell if a munition hit a flight-deck rather than the model as a whole, for example, and if it's realistic to expect some particular warhead or other to put a whacking great big hole in the deck; things become bothersome for deck operations.

Edited June 9, 2018 by ouPhrontis

[Papa Spardy]

Well, I wouldn't call the GBU-31 a small weapon. A ton of a bomb half of which is explosive made to destroy underground reinforced bunkers. Combine the kinetic and explosive damage it can do, not a small bomb.

 

Don't quote me on this, but aren't ship decks relatively thin. I am talking about 8 bombs which can go trough underground reinforced bunkers.

 

I have seen the bullet hole of a 50cal round through the Flight deck of a carrier. the 50cal was shot from just below the flight deck upwards.

[Shadow KT]

hah, awesome....

 

now when overpenetration keeps getting mentioned I just keep thinking about this scene

 

 

So, you are saying that this might be an overkill ?

 

[Dav IRL]

Well the ships should show a health bar for consistency's sake, noticed this too and it doesn't make sense to my knowledge.

[Yoda967]

Look up USS FRANKLIN (CV 13) from WWII. She got hit by one (possibly 2) 250Kg bomb that penetrated her flight deck and armor and went off in the hangar deck where there were several planes being refuelled and rearmed. The initial blast ruptured the aircraft refuelling system, spraying fuel everywhere. That led to a secondary, fuel/air explosion that blew one of her elevators off its tracks and touched off a fire that quickly spread to the flight deck where the air wing had just begun to launch for a strike. Most of the air wing's planes were abandoned with their engines turning, bombs armed. The Navy estimated later that there were more than fifty-five secondary explosions as the air wing's 500lb bombs and rockets cooked off.

 

 

 

 

Nearly 800 sailors died.

 

 

 

 

FRANKLIN survived the attack, was initially taken under tow, but later steamed to the Brooklyn Navy Yard (from the coast of Japan) under her own power.

 

There were a lot of lessons learned from that engagement, and it's safe to say that a modern US carrier incorporates all of them.

[Balzarog]

After the fire and explosions on the U.S.S. Foresstal in 1967, from a Zuni rocket that inadvertently fired (and no, it was not John McCain's A-4 that fired the Zuni), the U.S. Navy changed the composition of explosives so they have a MUCH higher "cook-off" temperature. I believe they will still cook-off at a high enough temperature, just not from fuel fires. Watching the film of the fire was required for Navy and Marine mechanics in 1969 when I went through aviation school. You could actually see John McCain slide down the nose of his burning A-4 to escape the fire (the boarding ladder had been removed to ready the airplane for taxi).

Edited June 11, 2018 by Balzarog

[Yoda967]

Something else comes to mind: You didn't say what the fuze setting was for your GBU-31. That hardened case won't do its thing without a delay on the fuze. Penetration takes time. Granted, it's a short time, so maybe the fuze delay is a tenth of a second, or two tenths. You need it to put the blast effect inside the target where it'll do the most damage.

[Papa Spardy]

After the fire and explosions on the U.S.S. Foresstal in 1967, from a Zuni rocket that inadvertently fired (and no, it was not John McCain's A-4 that fired the Zuni), the U.S. Navy changed the composition of explosives so they have a MUCH higher "cook-off" temperature. I believe they will still cook-off at a high enough temperature, just not from fuel fires. Watching the film of the fire was required for Navy and Marine mechanics in 1969 when I went through aviation school. You could actually see John McCain slide down the nose of his burning A-4 to escape the fire (the boarding ladder had been removed to ready the airplane for taxi).

 

Your a little bit off. When it comes to cook off times, it isn't the temperature, it's how long the ordnance has been on fire. One of the ways they rectified this is by thermally coating the bombs It increase cook off times. What you are talking about is the switch from h6 to pbxn-109 explosive filler. This was a much more stable explosive filler but did not help with the cook off time.

[Balzarog]

Your a little bit off. When it comes to cook off times, it isn't the temperature, it's how long the ordnance has been on fire. One of the ways they rectified this is by thermally coating the bombs It increase cook off times. What you are talking about is the switch from h6 to pbxn-109 explosive filler. This was a much more stable explosive filler but did not help with the cook off time.

 

I stand corrected then. I was Hydraulics/ Pneumatics, not Ordinance. The only information I have was from my instructors (and that was 49 years ago :doh:). Thank you for the correction. interestingly, John McCane's second ship, from which he flew his first mission and subsequently shot down, was the U.S.S. Oriskany, and it also had a major fire a year or two before he joined it. I understand that one was caused by a flare. A carrier flight deck is a very dangerous work area.

[Papa Spardy]

They still show the Foresstal video in a school.

[Balzarog]

I have seen the bullet hole of a 50cal round through the Flight deck of a carrier. the 50cal was shot from just below the flight deck upwards.

 

Oops! I'll bet someone got yelled at for that one:cry:

[Balzarog]

They still show the Foresstal video in a school.

 

When did you go through A-school?