I dont understand the purpose of using 40,000 lbs of TNT (0.2 kilotons) that registers as M3.9 quake - what kind of explosive payload is it simulating?
the only thing that comes to mind, is the smallest yield settings of a modern tactical nuke B61-12
I would guess that they want to simulate a percentage of the shock force of a near miss or hit from a (russian, chinese, other equivalent-tech) torpedo or naval mine without actually risking rupturing the hull. So they need a much greater weight of explosives positioned a much further distance away than if they were to actually fire a torpedo at the ship.
Or for general shake and vibration and shock force testing of the entire ship, simulating a combat environment. Unlike the shake/rattle/hydraulic ram rigs which are used to qualify a new airliner design on a structural test article, there's no other way than lots of explosives to shake/vibrate an entire Nimitz, Ford class size aircraft carrier.
I would guess they want a large enough explosion to generate peak acceleration of the entire ship without a local enough explosion to actually damage it. Getting enough separation to make it non-local requires a lot of explosive thanks to the inverse cube law.
If you look at e.g. seismic damage models, peak acceleration is correlated with most of the worst outcomes.
The structure is engineered to survive a multitude of conventional threats intact. It is testing properties of the design rather than specific weapons per se. Also, these tests are intended to be non-destructive which impacts their design.
Exercises where the US military uses decommissioned aircraft carriers and other large ships as targets are illustrative. They are basically unsinkable. You can hit them with torpedoes, bombs, missiles, etc all day. At the end of the exercise they usually have to send over a specialized demolition crew to actually scuttle the ship. Astonishingly damage resistant.
A nuke would of course do the trick but now you are playing a different game.
People chronically underestimate how difficult it is to get enough conventional explosive on target to sink a major naval vessel, even ignoring the extensive active defenses.
Steel in the ocean disappears in a century or two. Look at all the rusticles draping off the wreck of Titanic. Bacteria are eating the metal and making slime.
This must have maimed thousands of marine mammals.
Apparently the US Navy does these semi-regularly to test the durability of warships
This is almost certainly what it was. Wiki even has a photo of the USS Gerald Ford undergoing blast tests off of Ponce Inlet, and mentions that it registered as a M3.9 quake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford#Operational...
If I had to guess, this is probably the USS John F. Kennedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CVN-79)
I dont understand the purpose of using 40,000 lbs of TNT (0.2 kilotons) that registers as M3.9 quake - what kind of explosive payload is it simulating?
the only thing that comes to mind, is the smallest yield settings of a modern tactical nuke B61-12
I would guess that they want to simulate a percentage of the shock force of a near miss or hit from a (russian, chinese, other equivalent-tech) torpedo or naval mine without actually risking rupturing the hull. So they need a much greater weight of explosives positioned a much further distance away than if they were to actually fire a torpedo at the ship.
Or for general shake and vibration and shock force testing of the entire ship, simulating a combat environment. Unlike the shake/rattle/hydraulic ram rigs which are used to qualify a new airliner design on a structural test article, there's no other way than lots of explosives to shake/vibrate an entire Nimitz, Ford class size aircraft carrier.
I would guess they want a large enough explosion to generate peak acceleration of the entire ship without a local enough explosion to actually damage it. Getting enough separation to make it non-local requires a lot of explosive thanks to the inverse cube law.
If you look at e.g. seismic damage models, peak acceleration is correlated with most of the worst outcomes.
The structure is engineered to survive a multitude of conventional threats intact. It is testing properties of the design rather than specific weapons per se. Also, these tests are intended to be non-destructive which impacts their design.
Exercises where the US military uses decommissioned aircraft carriers and other large ships as targets are illustrative. They are basically unsinkable. You can hit them with torpedoes, bombs, missiles, etc all day. At the end of the exercise they usually have to send over a specialized demolition crew to actually scuttle the ship. Astonishingly damage resistant.
A nuke would of course do the trick but now you are playing a different game.
People chronically underestimate how difficult it is to get enough conventional explosive on target to sink a major naval vessel, even ignoring the extensive active defenses.
Falklands war shows otherwise.
Does it need to be the direct analog of any specific weapon, to be a useful test?
They also periodically use live munitions on decommissioned ships, sinking them, for the purposes of validating all sorts of stuff.
https://www.pacaf.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/452930...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Juneau_(LPD-10)
So, tactical ocean trash?
Almost every decom’d vessel that gets blown up for RIMPAC is turned into an artificial reef.
Steel in the ocean disappears in a century or two. Look at all the rusticles draping off the wreck of Titanic. Bacteria are eating the metal and making slime.