Armour Piercing Torpedoes

[Crazy Eddie]

^A nuclear device does not have a fireball when detonated in space.

Yes it does. A very small diffuse one, certainly, but since the explosion has the effect of vaporizing the entire device there IS a kinetic element as the bomb's components and a fair amount of un-fissioned core material is blown outwards as a diffuse cloud hot gas.

There would also be no concussive force in a vacuum.

At least, at any range other than point blank. Again, the expanding fireball from the vaporized bomb would immediately impact against anything nearby, on the order of a few dozen meters at most. With a near miss--more than, say, fifty meters away--the blast products will be too diffuse to have any effect at all... on the other hand, at that range the amount of radiation coming from the bomb would probably vaporize your ship and superheat the atmosphere inside it, turning YOU into a much larger fireball.

Unless your shields are up, of course.

 

[Timo]

...In which case they might do the Newtonian thing and take in the radiation pressure in a collision event, either elastically or inelastically. A perfectly reflective surface would probably be the ultimate shield against EM radiation, giving a wholly elastic bump - but the various massive particles in the radiation would still go inelastic. The Trek mastery of gravity tech could probably create the gravitic equivalent of a perfectly reflective surface, though, making the bump utterly elastic.

Only in the completely inelastic case would the ship not be shaken by the impact, though. If there's enough radiation to damage the ship physically, then there's enough to shake it, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain Rob]

Yes, there have been orbital nuclear explosions. I have a DVD documentary about it.

Here's a screen grab, I assume photographed from the ground.

Buy it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Nukes-Space-Rainbow-William-Shatner/dp/B00004XMTE

"Nukes in Space" narrated by William Shatner. Of course.
I wonder if Netflix has it?
Maybe we should pop one of those things off about 100 miles above North Korea.

 

[shipfisher]

I apologize for being unable to recall the exact reference(s) for this, but I think that as it matured, forcefield tech was incorporated into fed torp weapons to hold apart a more homogeneous mix of matter and antimatter before detonation for higher warhead yield as well as providing a "shaped-charge" type directing of the blast otherwise dissipated in the vacuum of space.

I think a torpedo casing beefed up with the likes of polarized plating and structural integrity fields, travelling at a fair chunk of light-speed, would be fairly unpleasant to get clipped by, regardless of its shape or things within ready to go bang.

 

[Timo]

The TNG Tech Manual was the first to suggest a "quantum leap" in photorp tech, so that an early, primitive warhead would indeed have just two lumps forced together (a bit like primitive fission bombs), while a more advanced model would have microscopic amounts brought together in a hundred places at once, with less loss of explosive oomph from the blowing away of reaction mass by the initial explosions.

The Tech Manual suggested that the newer warheads were introduced in 2270 or so, supposedly becoming the weapons used in the movies - possibly to explain why explosions in the movies appeared smaller, "more controlled", than in TOS. However, we could just as well decide that this development is what separated Archer's early "photonic" torpedoes from the later models; the slight fine-tuning of the name might have happened when the technological leap was made, or then it could be natural erosion of the jargon...

Hitting a starship with even an infinitely hard object might not be the best way to kill one, considering how splendidly shields seem to protect ships from kinetic impact in many cases. Then again, ramming of a well-shielded ship was successful in at least two cases: the Dominion War ("Tears of the Prophets" and the reuse of the footage in "What You Leave Behind") and ST:NEM. In the latter, an unshielded ship managed to tear a new one into a properly shielded ship. So everything's possible, I guess.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[shipfisher]

The Tech Manual suggested that the newer warheads were introduced in 2270 or so, supposedly becoming the weapons used in the movies - possibly to explain why explosions in the movies appeared smaller, "more controlled", than in TOS.

Timo Saloniemi

Less visually impressive torpedo detonations could be an aspect of forcefields directing the blast onto the target, allowing only a minuscule amount of the energy released to expand out towards any other vantage point. Post TOS advances could also include tunable warhead yields concentrated in more damaging parts of the EM spectrum than the visible.

 

[Lorna]

I honestly can't see how a Federation photon torpedo has armour piercing ability. It's not even shaped for armour piercing and when we've seen Starfleet officers open them the warheads are located in extremely thin compartments. When we saw torpedo hits in DS9 and the Dominion war they never penetrated the hull even on unshielded targets. We always saw surface detonation.

 

[shipfisher]

Well, as Timo said above, maybe starship shielding and structural integrity tech has developed to the point where the traditional kill shot is no longer the most efficient way to take out a starship, pretty much all of which would have a relatively high output power distribution network that might be easier to exploit in battle. Perhaps torp weapons are often intended to deliver a close-in, big, nasty dose of the right kind of radiation to cause "exploding consoles of doom" and such to the extent where the target takes itself out, even behind what's left of its shields. It often seems that the "coup de grâce" is a secondary explosion coming from within the targeted ship.

Looking to pierce a starship's hull may be a tad too 21st century for most trek tactical scenarios.

 

[Timo]

In realistic terms, space missiles of this sort should move at such velocities that shape would be utterly irrelevant to armor penetration ability. So should the thickness of the projectile shell. The only thing that would matter would be sheer kinetic energy: if there was enough of that (i.e. enough speed), then all physical armor would be penetrated.

Other physical things we might not recognize as armor could be effective against such weapons. Say, a hundred sheets of thin tinfoil, placed in a loose stack a dozen kilometers thick between the ship and the projectile, might be just enough to stop an (empty) photon torpedo casing from vaporizing the starship, basically irrespective of the materials used in constructing the torpedo or the starship. Or the tinfoil could be replaced with a bit of smoke. But Star Trek physical matter apparently is "aphysically" reinforced by forcefields and thus may prevent the application of real high velocity physics and substitute another set of physics. And in one possible (and dramatically likely) case these would be similar to current low-velocity projectile vs. armor physics.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Lorna]

In realistic terms, space missiles of this sort should move at such velocities that shape would be utterly irrelevant to armor penetration ability.

That is simply ridiculous. Torpedoes aren't fired at mega velocities, we can see that on screen with our own eyes. Ship hulls are made from Duranium, we have no idea just how tough the stuff is but it's likely one of the toughest materials Starfleet can create. If you fire 2 different style torpedoes towards the enemy ship and fire them at the same speed then the torpedo with the pointy end and which is made of stronger material will penetrated easier and further than the rounded torpedo with weak material.

I'm sure that the greater the velocity the greater the damage and possible penetration of the enemy hull but torpedoes can't be fired at just any velocity. They have maximum velocities, the ships torpedoes firing mechanism will have a maximum fire rate.

Acknowledging this fact means a torpedo will have better penetration ability when made with stronger material and given a pointy end. Obviously other add ons may be available to aid in armour penetration such as a tip that emits superheated plasma prior to impact.

It bugs me that there's never a delayed detonation. The torpedoes should only detonate when it's actually penetrated as far into the hull as it possibly can. From what I've seen in Trek the torpedoes detonate from the slightest of touches.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Clearly, then, torpedos (At least the ones Starfleet fields) aren't meant to outright destroy an opponent in one shot. It doesn't seem very Starfleet to me to want to maximize the opponent's casualties and damage with only one hit. The Feds love negotiating and letting baddies go (unless they're pirates or criminals or something).

It's possible, also, that torpedoes are intended more for anti-shield applications, than anti-armor applications (which, would of course make them good for disrupting an opponent's SIF, so you can swiss cheese em' with phasers or pound them to bits with your disruptors).

 

[blssdwlf]

It bugs me that there's never a delayed detonation. The torpedoes should only detonate when it's actually penetrated as far into the hull as it possibly can. From what I've seen in Trek the torpedoes detonate from the slightest of touches.

Wasn't there an undetonated torpedo in DS9's "Starship Down"?

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yep.

 

[DonIago]

Also in Year of Hell.

 

[shipfisher]

I have to say that 19th century dreadnought style ram bows are also conspicuous by their absence on trekships, and pointed sticks are often abandoned in favor of hand phasers and the like in ground battles - what the heck's that about?

 

[Timo]

That is simply ridiculous. Torpedoes aren't fired at mega velocities, we can see that on screen with our own eyes.

I didn't argue that. I argued that real space missiles should move faster, in which case armor would not exist as a concept; physics wouldn't allow for it.

Trek is different. But by that token, we must allow for it to be different from 19th century naval warfare, too.

Ship hulls are made from Duranium, we have no idea just how tough the stuff is but it's likely one of the toughest materials Starfleet can create. If you fire 2 different style torpedoes towards the enemy ship and fire them at the same speed then the torpedo with the pointy end and which is made of stronger material will penetrated easier and further than the rounded torpedo with weak material.

That's just not true. "Toughness" ceases to be a factor in high speed impacts, and a "pointy end" will only impede penetration in those cases where the point gets vaporized before the main body and forms a protective cloud of vapor around the target.

If the fictional physics of forcefield-reinforced matter in Trek have the effect of making futurotech behave like 19th century cannon shells, then fine. They're fictional, they can have that effect, and it might be fun. But just as plainly as we see that photon torpedoes travel relatively (sorry, Albert!) slowly, we see that they don't work on principles that would call for pointy ends. What we see is what we have.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[shipfisher]

What we see is what we have.

Timo Saloniemi

Ahh...there's the rub.

Isn't that what this forum is all about?

We look at how tech is visually depicted in trek, and wrap a pseudo-believable explanation around that, tailored, to a certain extent, by present day understanding of physics, etc.

Yes, a pointy round might make sense in some types of kinetic kill scenarios as we conceive them today, but in trek, the fact is, we're presented with round-ended torpedo weapons - Why? - and then we all have jolly good fun gas-bagging about the possibilities.

 

[publiusr]

So far the Narada's missiles seem to be the only projectiles I've seen since Dominion poloron torpedos that punch through. I'm calling them partially phased neutronium projectiles from a planet killer shattered by impact with a neutron stare. Some handwavium kept them from balling up into spheres. There were only a limited number in the universe, but then too, a mining ship might be what finds them after all.

Kazon breeching torpedos were similar...?

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Or they were designed to defend against raiders/pirates/etc. of the late late 24th century, who would be less well-armed than militaries of the era, being able to do a pretty good amount of damage to them. When the Narada shows up in pre-TOS, their cheapo missiles are suddenly starship-killers.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In realistic terms, space missiles of this sort should move at such velocities that shape would be utterly irrelevant to armor penetration ability.

That is simply ridiculous. Torpedoes aren't fired at mega velocities, we can see that on screen with our own eyes. Ship hulls are made from Duranium, we have no idea just how tough the stuff is but it's likely one of the toughest materials Starfleet can create. If you fire 2 different style torpedoes towards the enemy ship and fire them at the same speed then the torpedo with the pointy end and which is made of stronger material will penetrated easier and further than the rounded torpedo with weak material.

That's not even true of MODERN warfare. Take the conspicuously blunt nose of the Hellfire missile: there's no pointy end on it because pointiness only makes a difference at hyper-velocities, which Hellfire doesn't use. Instead, it uses a shaped-charge explosive to penetrate armor; it is literally CONCAVE on the inside, so the blast is focussed on a single point to penetrate armor by concentration of chemical energy. Plenty of landmines and IEDs work the same way, in fact one of the most effective improvised bombs in Iraq is neither pointy nor dense, it's merely a concave disk of copper packed in a jar of explosives. Even Russian RPGs only have a pointy end for aerodynamic purposes; the hollow cone of the armor piercing rounds is the only part that does any actual penetrating work.

An armor-piercing photon torpedo would accomplish the same goal by channeling all the energy of its matter-antimatter reaction in a single direction, straight forward into the ship. If you hit the ship at a thin section, it simply blows a hole (TUC, ahem). If you hit it at a thick section, it'll carve a narrow path of destruction through five decks, vaporizing everything in its path, though emergency forcefields and bulkheads will contain it to that narrow path. Probably this mode will cause critical damage to internal systems while producing a relatively wimpy (or so it appears) explosion. This compares to other types of torpedoes that would either distribute the discharge evenly in all directions, or use the energy release to superheat and vaporize a quantity of incredibly dense material to create a big messy fireball that can more easily demolish physical structures.

Acknowledging this fact means a torpedo will have better penetration ability when made with stronger material and given a pointy end.

Only if you can make them go faster. If you can't, better to design the torpedo warhead to do the penetrating work instead. This is USUALLY easier to do, especially when fighting at close range (and based on visuals, torpedoes are rarely used at rangers greater than a few hundred kilometers, if that).=

It bugs me that there's never a delayed detonation. The torpedoes should only detonate when it's actually penetrated as far into the hull as it possibly can. From what I've seen in Trek the torpedoes detonate from the slightest of touches.

Which to me seems proof yet again that we're dealing with a type of explosive penetrator, not a kinetic one. The warhead does all the work, not the casing itself.