I remember reading about that. With networked sensors, I wouldn't imagine that you'd want your own weapons slaved to the network. That would indeed introduce lag. Network sensors would see their best use increasing your fleet's interdiction zone. Each ship would drive its own weapons, but the network could potentially reduce redundant targeting, since each ship would know what the others were doing. Sharing sensor data would also cover blind spots.fredgiblet wrote: One point about this, when one of the SAM programs was being tested as an ABM they had to adjust the proximity fuses because the closing speed was so high that the bomber-tuned fuses were detonating the SAM far enough behind the target missile that the damage wasn't sufficient. Networked devices may well work, but you risk that quarter-second delay causing you to miss your target. Of course you can beat that by directly slaving missiles on one ship to anothers fire-control, but it's still a concern.
As for real-world applications, the US Navy has its Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). What details I've found suggest that sensor data is shared, but no word on what drives the weapons. I'll assume each ship handles its own weapons, but you know what they say about assumption...
@discord
I don't know of any armored weapon system with equal distribution. AFVs, tanks, planes, ships; they've always been armored on the principle of their engagement profiles. How will they enter a battlefield? How will they move through it? What threats are they designed to handle; what threats are reasonable to expect? What are the most critical parts of the machine?
It always comes down to a tradeoff. Armor can be expensive, hard to produce, hard to work with, and hard to maintain (often because it is so literally hard). It adds mass to your platform. The more you have, you need to provide for more power and fuel, complicating your logistics. This will compound the ammo situation, as well; more mass devoted to armor can mean less toward ammo, dependent on much engine and fuel you're willing to throw at the problem.
But, based on your comment, you would just have the whole ship made out of armor material? Because if you're going to use that much, you might as well use it as structural material. Modern naval vessels are generally made from HSLA steels, which are very, very tough. Certainly strong enough to handle .50-cal and related types of bullets.
As for ASMs and torpedoes, Nemo gives a good explanation for why more armor isn't better. And to shrapnel and anti-spalling armor, that's usually provided by fabric lining, e.g., Kevlar. You can find it in AFVs and tanks. I'm not sure about ships, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have some.
The current idea is that a ship doesn't get hit in the first place. Remember, it's much, much easier to develop a new armor-piercing ASM than it will be for you to armor up your fleet.