Explaining Explosive Ordnance - How rockets and missiles (of various roles) work. - General

Some who are fascinated with military technology may know much of this already - my piece here is more for the benefit of those who play games like Call of Duty without completely understanding how they work (And why the situations shown in the games tend to be ridiculously unrealistic). [B][U]Anti-Armor[/U][/B] [B]Conventional AT warheads:[/B] The standard anti-tank warhead, and the type used in most shoulder-fired unguided rockets today, is called a shaped charge warhead. The effectiveness of this warhead has decreased of late against the most modern battle tanks, because of something called reactive armor, which I'll explain shortly. [img]http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2007/2nd_quarter/qinetiq__shell_and.Par.43210.File.tmp/Shaped%20Charge%20illustration.JPG[/img] Shaped charges in conventional anti-tank warheads are usually designed with a very hard outer shell (at least behind the explosive charge) to direct the energy of the blast. Inside is a considerable amount of high-explosive packed around a hollow copper cone, with the open end facing the target. When the charge is detonated, the copper liquefies, and the shape of the explosive forces all the copper into a very narrow, very hot jet of molten metal, traveling at an extremely high velocity. This tears through heavy armor like it's tissue paper, and, entering the tank, incinerates everything inside. Such warheads are usually of limited effectiveness against enemy personnel, unless they're very close to the explosion, because most of the explosive energy has been directed to propel the copper. To the observer, the tank may appear completely undamaged, often with not so much as a wisp of smoke to indicate the destruction wrought by the warhead - but the crew is likely to be dead. Upon closer inspection in such cases, one is likely to find a tiny hole at the point of impact, little larger in diameter than a pencil. Occasionally, the tank catches fire, and/or explodes when the stored ammunition inside the turret is ignited. To counter such warheads, reactive armor was designed. [B]Reactive Armor:[/B] [img]http://www.univer.omsk.su/students/lachin/t80.jpg[/img] Rather extreme measures have to be taken to foil a molten copper jet. Reactive armor bricks, seen covering the surfaces of many modern tanks today, are essentially explosive shaped charges designed to blow the incoming missile - and the resulting copper jet - away from the tank on impact. As you can probably guess, they're designed with a heavy armored plate on the back (the end facing the tank) and an HE charge that explodes when hit by a rocket. [B]Tandem Warheads:[/b] To counter the problem of reactive armor, the most modern anti tank warheads, usually found on guided missiles to make the most of their high costs, consist of a preliminary charge and a main charge. The preliminary charge is a small one, usually designed to detonate any reactive armor bricks in the way of the missile. The main charge explodes a split-second later, ripping through the tank. These are usually more powerful versions of the shaped AT charges. The AGM-114K and L Hellfire missile can penetrate up to four feet of solid steel with ease. [B][U]Anti-Air[/U][/B] [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim9.jpg[/img] Anti-air weapons, whether they be AAA shells or guided SAM/AAMs, usually have a warhead that is designed to fragment very effectively. red-hot shrapnel from the explosion rips through the thin skins of most aircraft, destroying avionics, cutting hydraulic lines, and often killing crew. Because of the volatile nature of aviation fuel and hydraulic fluid, anti-air warheads often start fires on board and can turn aircraft into fireballs. [B]Thanks to God's Pimp Hand for the following information on the way anti-air missiles fragment:[/B] [B][I]"AA missiles explode in a slightly different fashion than conventional HE munitions do by utilizing annular fragmentation. The outer-casing of the missile is comprised of a series of long rods that are alternatingly welded at the ends with a more ductile metal, which allows it to expand in a ring-like/zig-zag formation, rather than as random bits and chunks like normal HE would. As a result, the fragment with its ring-like shape has a greater chance of striking its target and dealing more damage."[/I][/B] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Continuous-rod-warhead.gif[/img] [B][U]Anti-Personnel[/U][/B] [img]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/type-81-F5111UP1.JPG[/img] Fragmentation and incendiary warheads have aways been quite effective as anti-personnel weapons. However, the nature of warfare today often demands a reduction in collateral damage to buildings and property. There are many anti-personnel weapons being developed that focus on using the pressure wave from the explosion to kill - few, if any of these, will have seen practical application at this time. [B][U]Multi-Purpose[/U][/B] Multirole weapons are relatively new and often incorporate a combination of the above features to create warheads that can kill practically anything. The Hellfire missile (Mentioned so often because I'm practically an Apache weapons guru [see: geek]) is one of these. Its casing fragments upon detonation, but its real power lies in the immense force of the blast - it can rip a tank open like a tin can, vaporize infantry targets, and reduce buildings to rubble, with five [I]million[/I] pounds of pressure applied to every square inch of surface nearby. [img]http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_AGM-114K_Hellfire_II_Cutaway_Photo_lg.jpg[/img] [B][U]The tank killer - AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire.[/U][/B] The Longbow Hellfire missile is a radar-guided antitank weapon fired exclusively from the AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter. It's one of the world's best examples of missile tech and has an effective engagement range of 8.5 kilometers (5.3 miles). Here's how it works. Apaches operate in teams of two, or up to squadrons of eight, though they are quite capable of operating independently. Each one can carry up to sixteen hellfire missiles. [img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5589678669_5bdb486365_b.jpg[/img] They are agile vehicles, designed to be flown fast and low using 'nap of the earth' tactics, effectively using the terrain to hide themselves. They generally position themselves roughly five kilometers away from the target area, so their rotors can not be heard. The lead aircraft then increases the collective, raising his aircraft to the point that his Fire Control Radar (The bulbous thing on the rotor mast) is exposed and able to 'see' over terrain. [img]http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3117/longbow1.jpg[/img] The scan takes three seconds, during which the aircraft's computer identifies up to 1024 radar contacts, compares the profiles to a database of known friendly vehicles, prioritizes the 128 most dangerous of those and sends them to the other aircraft in the squadron, then breaks the engagement area into 'lanes' and automatically assigns targets to each one of the squadron's aircraft. Seconds later, assuming there's a full complement of targets, a total of one hundred and twenty-eight AGM-114L RF Hellfire missiles slip off the rails of all eight aircraft, point their noses upward at a 45 degree angle and climb for one kilometer. The flight paths of each and every missile are constantly updated by the lead aircraft's radar picture. The missile glide until they're close to their target, then go into a dive and come down on them at Mach 1.3. Each aircraft then sends its 'shot-at' list to the lead aircraft, and all hits and misses are tallied. In less than a minute, in this manner, an entire battallion of tanks can be destroyed, and if the pilots are good, the enemy wouldn't even know they were there. [img]http://www.deagel.com/library1/medium/m02006120700311.jpg[/img] [B][U]Missile Steering:[/U][/B] Anti-air missiles are generally designed for a long engine burn and a very, very high speed, the better to catch up to and intercept fast-moving aircraft. Missiles designed to engage ground targets, however, typically have a short engine burn of only a few seconds to give them speed and altitude, then [I]glide[/I] the rest of the way to the target, all the while using small flaps on their fins to correct their heading, ensuring that they track the target they're locked on to.

But of course I can blow up a tank with an AA gun!

So basically, shit goes bang.

That was a nice read.

A loud bang, hopefully resulting in the disappearence of a recently existing object!

[QUOTE=Spycrabz;29203250]So basically, shit goes bang.[/QUOTE] P. much, man. P. much.

This thread tickles me in all of my manly areas

Explosives are the shit, main reason I'm interested in chemistry. Rated funny??

boom

you forgot something... [media]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oC8TwXe4PF0/TIBmYauO7MI/AAAAAAAABJQ/_y9ByRd_-FQ/s1600/755px-Nuclear_artillery_test_Grable_Event_-_Part_of_Operation_Upshot-Knothole.jpg[/media]

how did you forget this? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e1ktRjeOuI[/media]

there is no one i hate more than archangel

This thread blows hard, we don't need more gun shit to spew on this crap smeared section. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("If you don't like the thread, don't post" - Overv))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=syndicshibbycal;29208756]there is no one i hate more than archangel[/QUOTE] Love you too.

Do you know anything about what modern tanks fire? Or the weaponry on today's air superiority fighters? Anything you can add about the A10 Warthog would also be appreciated; that plane makes me as hard as YellaWood.

[QUOTE=Amerigo;29210014]Do you know anything about what modern tanks fire? Or the weaponry on today's air superiority fighters? Anything you can add about the A10 Warthog would also be appreciated; that plane makes me as hard as YellaWood.[/QUOTE] I know a fair bit about tank shells and the A-10, but I wanted to focus mostly on rockets and missiles.

my piece here is more for the benefit of those who play games like Call of Duty without completely understanding how they work (And why the situations shown in the games tend to be ridiculously unrealistic). Except you mentioned CoD once and then never again. Not that I care too much there's already enough people crying about how dare people enjoy a game that isn't super duper realistic.

I always found it depressing how effective our weapons are compared to how effective our defences are.

hey archangel, how feasible is a sodium + water bomb?

[QUOTE=markg06;29210632]my piece here is more for the benefit of those who play games like Call of Duty without completely understanding how they work (And why the situations shown in the games tend to be ridiculously unrealistic). Except you mentioned CoD once and then never again.[/QUOTE] I thought it'd be self-explanatory. Javelin missiles are NOT used against air targets. Most people know AT4s are not guided, so I didn't mention that. And you can't kill a tank with a triple A gun, FFS. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mokkan;29210680]hey archangel, how feasible is a sodium + water bomb?[/QUOTE] It certainly looks impressive, but I think that the explosive compound the government has access to, the stuff they use at this time in explosive weapons, has a much higher yield. And since water is so common, the stuff's a little too reactive to store or transport safely for ammunition, wouldn't you agree?

Javelin maybe anit tank but the Stinger is anti air

[QUOTE=archangel125;29210682]I thought it'd be self-explanatory. Javelin missiles are NOT used against air targets. Most people know AT4s are not guided, so I didn't mention that. And you can't kill a tank with a triple A gun, FFS. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] It certainly looks impressive, but I think that the explosive compound the government has access to, the stuff they use at this time in explosive weapons, has a much higher yield. And since water is so common, the stuff's a little too reactive to store or transport safely for ammunition, wouldn't you agree?[/QUOTE] For a homemade bomb it would server easily, wouldn't it?

[QUOTE=RG4;29210771]Javelin maybe anit tank but the Stinger is anti air[/QUOTE] Aye. the stinger guidance system can acquire targets up to.. I think six or seven klicks, and engage targets four kilometers away. That said, it isn't good enough to defeat the majority of modern countermeasures anymore. radar guidance, not heat-seekers, are the way to go in the future.

[QUOTE=archangel125;29210682]I thought it'd be self-explanatory. Javelin missiles are NOT used against air targets. Most people know AT4s are not guided, so I didn't mention that. And you can't kill a tank with a triple A gun, FFS. [/QUOTE] How do I kill a tank?

[QUOTE=mokkan;29210782]For a homemade bomb it would server easily, wouldn't it?[/QUOTE] Oh, sure. Just not practical in military applications. I've only ever seen tiny amounts of sodium reacting with water, but I'm not entirely certain it can be used effectively in larger bombs. Why do you ask? [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=killover;29210784]How do I kill a tank?[/QUOTE] You kill it with armor-penetrating saboted shells, anything with a high density and velocity, or an anti-tank warhead. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] Was that even a serious question?

So I was wondering about the Hellfire missile penetration, I'm sure it can gut most tanks and all, but how does four feet of plain steel rate against the layered steel / depleted uranium / ceramic armor / god knows what else of a modern tank

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;29210947]So I was wondering about the Hellfire missile penetration, I'm sure it can gut most tanks and all, but how does four feet of plain steel rate against the layered steel / depleted uranium / ceramic armor / god knows what else of a modern tank[/QUOTE] I'll have to research it. Still, as of 2010, there was no known type of armor that could survive it. I'm sure that's still the case. Basically, it kills ALL tanks.

[QUOTE=mokkan;29210680]how feasible is a sodium + water bomb?[/QUOTE] I could be mistaken, but didnt the US do something similar in Aphganistan with potassium pellets and water? Cause i hear they dropped tons of potassium on targets like roads then came back and waterbombed the pellets.

Sodium just about fizzes and gets hot in water, any flame you see is the hydrogen gas igniting. It doesn't heat things up fast enough to cause any sort of decent explosion. People who think it would cause an explosion are science nerd kids in their bedroom wanking over what they were told in class in lessons on the periodic table and reactivity series of elements who have no recall of actually seeing sodium put in water. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] You can stick caesium into a glass water tank and it liberates hydrogen and causes the water to flash boil fast enough to cause a shock wave that makes a splash and can shatter the glass. This is hardly a bomb but looks spectacular enough and is loud enough to make kids jump. It's less powerful than a firecracker.

Reactive armor isn't the only counter to HEAT warheads - ceramic/composite armors like Chobham and other materials were designed to defeat ATGM threats at the time, and have been supplanted by DU armor in the case of American M1 MBTs. On ERA, Soviet Kontakt-5 armor was designed to make it harder to trigger by the small tandem-charge warheads of missiles the the TOW-2A, resulting in ATGM designers allocating a bigger tandem charge to defeat it. Of course with Kaktus or whatever the Russians are developing now the trend may continue with bigger precursor charges. [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;29210998]I'll have to research it. Still, as of 2010, there was no known type of armor that could survive it. I'm sure that's still the case. Basically, it kills ALL tanks.[/QUOTE] With weapon manufacturer hype and the fact that Hellfires have not been used in combat against modern armor, that's an unknown. 4 feet of penetration gives modern Hellfires around 1200mm of RHA penetration. As an aside, the Russian Kornet has a manufacturer's penetration claim of 1300mm of RHA. And then there was my spiel about the reliance of RHA penetration figures in actual combat. [QUOTE=Zezibesh;29210947]So I was wondering about the Hellfire missile penetration, I'm sure it can gut most tanks and all, but how does four feet of plain steel rate against the layered steel / depleted uranium / ceramic armor / god knows what else of a modern tank[/QUOTE] I'll post this from a contact who was partially involved with such things in the '80s: [quote]By the mid-80s, armor/anti-armor specialists in the intelligence community had all but given up on trying to use RHA equivalency as any sort of meaningful comparison. As Saber6 indicates, the "good stuff" designed to provide protection against both kinetic and chemical energy projectiles had made it a whole different ball game.[/quote] [editline]16th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Amerigo;29210014]Do you know anything about what modern tanks fire? Or the weaponry on today's air superiority fighters? Anything you can add about the A10 Warthog would also be appreciated; that plane makes me as hard as YellaWood.[/QUOTE] Read this: [url]http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_053c.html[/url]