CIWS systems

[contedicavour]

With the latest developments in front of Beyrouth, it's more than ever urgent to revise functioning and ROE of close-in weapons systems aboard our warships.
My questions are :
(1) which systems are able to engage fastest the targets emerging suddenly close by, such as missiles from the nearby coast ? In my opinion, artillery is better than missiles, and heavier calibres are more effective at wiping out incoming missiles.
(2) in which conditions warships "switch on" radars and seekers guiding the guns and/or missiles making up the CIWS ?

thks

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

which systems are able to engage fastest the targets emerging suddenly close by, such as missiles from the nearby coast ?

Numbers of systems, some operate only artillery, like:

-The american Phalanx system, which is a Gatling gun (an M61 20mm, like the one on F-15), combined with a search radar and a tracking radar (later improvment include a electro optical sensor to allow the engagment of slow target just above the water, like small ships)

-The Dutch Goalkeeper. It works like the Phalanx but uses a seven-barelled 30mm gun.

-On Russian warships, often AK-630 6-barrelled 30mm Guns combined with a fire control radar.

-Some 20 or 30mm artillery turrets with electro optical fire control, like the one on French destroyer, but I doubt they could engage a high speed small target like an incoming missile.

Others are short range missiles, like RAM aboard several US and German Warships, or sextuple Mistral launchers (Sadral) on French ships.

Finally, some systems operate both guns and missiles like the russian made Kashtan system with two 30mm Gatling guns and 8 9m311 missiles. Sensor are search and track radars and electro optical.

I think that combined systems are the most efficient, but there is no need to have both guns and missiles in a single system. You can operate a RAM and a Phalanx, in order to provide a good close range defence.

But in order to built an efficient defence, you need to know as early as possible that you are under attack. Radar emmision are controlled by what it is called "EMCON", but you can operate a passive search system like the Vampir IR system on board French ships, while having search and FC radars in "stand by" mode (ready to emit). It depends of the situation and doctrine.

 

[contedicavour]

Numbers of systems, some operate only artillery, like:

-The american Phalanx system, which is a Gatling gun (an M61 20mm, like the one on F-15), combined with a search radar and a tracking radar (later improvment include a electro optical sensor to allow the engagment of slow target just above the water, like small ships)

-The Dutch Goalkeeper. It works like the Phalanx but uses a seven-barelled 30mm gun.

-On Russian warships, often AK-630 6-barrelled 30mm Guns combined with a fire control radar.

-Some 20 or 30mm artillery turrets with electro optical fire control, like the one on French destroyer, but I doubt they could engage a high speed small target like an incoming missile.

Others are short range missiles, like RAM aboard several US and German Warships, or sextuple Mistral launchers (Sadral) on French ships.

Finally, some systems operate both guns and missiles like the russian made Kashtan system with two 30mm Gatling guns and 8 9m311 missiles. Sensor are search and track radars and electro optical.

I think that combined systems are the most efficient, but there is no need to have both guns and missiles in a single system. You can operate a RAM and a Phalanx, in order to provide a good close range defence.

But in order to built an efficient defence, you need to know as early as possible that you are under attack. Radar emmision are controlled by what it is called "EMCON", but you can operate a passive search system like the Vampir IR system on board French ships, while having search and FC radars in "stand by" mode (ready to emit). It depends of the situation and doctrine.

Ok let's suppose a missile is picked up by onboard sensors (radar or IR like Vampir), and let's suppose the CIWS system is on full automatic. Which system is the fastest to engage and which has the highest % of destroying the target ?
I believe in engagements < 5 km the best chances are with the system firing the highest number of rounds with the highest destructive potential. That's why I prefer 76mm Super Rapid guided ammunition guns shooting 120 rounds a minute of 6kg, instead of shooting 3000 rounds a minute of much smaller 20mm unguided (Phalanx) or instead of launching for ex max 6 Mistral missiles.
In the Israeli example you have 18 seconds...
> you shoot 36 6-kg guided ammo rounds
> you shoot 800 small calibre unguided rounds
> you shoot 6 mistrals (IR guided)
I'd like your opinion on this.

A plus

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok let's suppose a missile is picked up by onboard sensors (radar or IR like Vampir), and let's suppose the CIWS system is on full automatic. Which system is the fastest to engage and which has the highest % of destroying the target ?
I believe in engagements < 5 km the best chances are with the system firing the highest number of rounds with the highest destructive potential. That's why I prefer 76mm Super Rapid guided ammunition guns shooting 120 rounds a minute of 6kg, instead of shooting 3000 rounds a minute of much smaller 20mm unguided (Phalanx) or instead of launching for ex max 6 Mistral missiles.
In the Israeli example you have 18 seconds...
> you shoot 36 6-kg guided ammo rounds
> you shoot 800 small calibre unguided rounds
> you shoot 6 mistrals (IR guided)
I'd like your opinion on this.

A plus

Well for starters if you are going to deploy warships to a warzone, how can you NOT have your defences up?

Second, an overlapping defence is always going to be better than relying upon a solitary type of system. AS to my opinion, I prefer a mix of guns and missiles.

The RAN has ESSM protecting (most) of it's ANZAC class (soon to be ALL). It is still deciding upon whether to fit a "2nd layer" CIWS. It also has a 5 inch gun which is capable of firing AA rounds and 0.50cal HMG's equipped with "Toplite" fire control/surveillance systems which possess a (limited) AA capability.

Personally I think they should ALSO be equipped with a RAM launcher. On this occasion only 2 missiles were fired. There is absolutely NO reason why a Country wouldn't "swamp" a naval vessel with ASM's. A saturation attack of 7-10 missiles would virtually overwhelm any system that wasn't layered.

In the Israeli scenario given the extreme short range (apparently less than 2 k's), I think the Phalanx was the best option. with a mere 18 seconds to engage the threat. The "wall" of lead that could have been thrown up in that time, would have been the best chance of protecting the ship.

Also given the 17-20k range of the 76mm gun, WHY was the Israeli vessel so close???

 

[contedicavour]

Well for starters if you are going to deploy warships to a warzone, how can you NOT have your defences up?

Second, an overlapping defence is always going to be better than relying upon a solitary type of system. AS to my opinion, I prefer a mix of guns and missiles.

The RAN has ESSM protecting (most) of it's ANZAC class (soon to be ALL). It is still deciding upon whether to fit a "2nd layer" CIWS. It also has a 5 inch gun which is capable of firing AA rounds and 0.50cal HMG's equipped with "Toplite" fire control/surveillance systems which possess a (limited) AA capability.

Personally I think they should ALSO be equipped with a RAM launcher. On this occasion only 2 missiles were fired. There is absolutely NO reason why a Country wouldn't "swamp" a naval vessel with ASM's. A saturation attack of 7-10 missiles would virtually overwhelm any system that wasn't layered.

In the Israeli scenario given the extreme short range (apparently less than 2 k's), I think the Phalanx was the best option. with a mere 18 seconds to engage the threat. The "wall" of lead that could have been thrown up in that time, would have been the best chance of protecting the ship.

Also given the 17-20k range of the 76mm gun, WHY was the Israeli vessel so close???

Ok thks interesting. So you'd go for a mix of medium-range SAMs such as ESSMs and CIWS guns, with a preference for smaller calibre but higher rounds per minute. Or ESSM+RAM, or ideally even ESSM+RAM+Phalanx.

Your preference aside, how do you judge the efficacy against a sudden short range missile attack of a mix of Aster 15/30, 76/62SR and 25mm (both the Cavour and the Orizzontes' configuration) ?

I agree with you the Israeli vessel was exposing itself needlessly close to shore given the range of its artillery (though the Saar V don't have 76mm when they carry Phalanx, it's either/or).

cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok thks interesting. So you'd go for a mix of medium-range SAMs such as ESSMs and CIWS guns, with a preference for smaller calibre but higher rounds per minute. Or ESSM+RAM, or ideally even ESSM+RAM+Phalanx.

Your preference aside, how do you judge the efficacy against a sudden short range missile attack of a mix of Aster 15/30, 76/62SR and 25mm (both the Cavour and the Orizzontes' configuration) ?

I agree with you the Israeli vessel was exposing itself needlessly close to shore given the range of its artillery (though the Saar V don't have 76mm when they carry Phalanx, it's either/or).

cheers

The way I see it, if you have a mix of medium range SAM, VSRAAD missiles AND a rapid fire gun you have all bases covered, at least in terms of self-protection for the vessel. Escort and wide area AA capability is lacking, but the vessel itself, provided it is equipped with adequate radar, fire control and ESM capabilities, should be able to put itself in harms way.

As to the particular weapon systems, I think a dedicated weapon like ESSM should be carried by major surface combatants regardless of their role. It's designed specifically to target ASM's, with anti-air only a secondary consideration. It's also designed to rapidly respond to threats being an exceptionally "fast" missile.

I also think there needs to be a weapon system capable of engaging ultra-fast short ranged threats, as appears to be the case in Lebanon, with the Israeli craft. Phalanx SHOULD be capable of performing the role, I know it's not as "long ranged" as RAM, Mistral or even Barak, but it HAS to be quicker firing and doesn't soley rely on the accuracy of the weapon system, unlike a missile. Proximity fuses are all well and good, but I personally believe an accurate "wall of lead" is going to stand a better chance as last ditch system than another missile system.

Phalanx possibly needs a calibre upgrade to 25-35mm in order to ensure it is sufficiently capable of engaging a threat at sufficient range with sufficient "hitting power", but as long as the rate of fire remains the same and the accuracy of the radar/EO-IR system supporting it is adequate, I think this provides the best solution. Plus it obviously has great utility against surface threats and is likely to be far more effective than EO/IR guided heavy machine gun systems...

Would a Navy actually fire a RAM or Mistral missile against a "terrorist" wooden fishing boat? It's more likely they'd engage it with HMG or small arms fire...

IF a vessel therefore can only have "2" weapon systems (as Australia's ANZAC class seem intended to do) than a medium ranged anti-ASM system like ESSM and Phalanx 1B (with upgraded calibre to 30mm if possible) would be my choice for the 2. The addition of RAM or similar would also be welcome, and you'll note that Australia's upgraded FFG frigates will mount a 76/62mm gun, ESSM, SM-2IIIA AND Phalanx, giving one of the tightest air defences around...

As to the Aster question, I think it's likely to prove a very effective defence system. I presume the 25mm is a radar/EO-IR guided CIWS system? If it's a "Typhoon" type system, I think it would have limited applicability in this scenario. The choice of 25mm calibre should at least confer better range and lethality, though I think a rapid fire 30mm cannon at least should be used in this role...

For the lack of turned on defensive systems, IMHO, if a vessel needs to shut off it's defensive systems because of deconfliction issues with a supporting air element, than the force needs some serious work on it's "jointery", ie: it's ability to form a seamless force able to work together.

This is something that Australia has been trying very hard to achieve. Modern IFF systems and robust rules of engagement should prevent or limit any sort of "Blue on Blue" incident and more advanced capabilities such as the USA's "Blue force tracker" or equivalent should allow force elements to work together at high operational rates.

I find it amazing that Israel was so lax or had such a lower opinion of their enemies that they allowed this to occur. Perhaps when the war is over it needs to look at involving itself in more "coalition" type military exercises and learn something about operating "jointly"...

An important point should also be taken from this attack. When war comes, you need to fight with what you have. RAN and the Australian Government have been procrastinating over the ANZAC frigate anti-ship missile defence upgrades for years. They currently appear less well defended than this Israeli Corvette. Hopefully this makes them sit up and take notice...

 

[Rykehaven]

I believe in engagements < 5 km the best chances are with the system firing the highest number of rounds with the highest destructive potential.

Close.

The best chances involve a system firing the highest number of rounds within the minimum spread (mils deviation or a really good CAC). In terms of AAW, there's less emphasis on destructive potential. Accuracy and saturation are at the forefront.

You don't need to destroy a missile on contact with a "wall of lead" (that rarely happens as it's supposed to, BTW). Even in sub-sonic engagements, the purpose of CIWS is to disturb the missile's airframe whose tolerances are measured in micrometers (and in some cases, nanometers). If a projectile so much as "nicks" the airframe, its structure will be peeled away like a bannana, or if it loses its trim first, it will simply tear itself apart. Conflagration occurs soon afterwards (usually the booster's fuel) and all of this takes less than a blink of an eye (which is a half second ).

If you're talking about the actual DTE's, it's alot more difficult to answer due to complexity and fluid situations (not to mention dumb luck).

 

[Rykehaven]

That's why I prefer 76mm Super Rapid guided ammunition guns shooting 120 rounds a minute of 6kg, instead of shooting 3000 rounds a minute of much smaller 20mm unguided (Phalanx) or instead of launching for ex max 6 Mistral missiles.

Just to note that all US Navy Phalanx's fire at 4500 rpm for incoming air threats. However, I'm pretty certain that there are some Block 0s in foreign Navys somewhere.

Second, an overlapping defence is always going to be better than relying upon a solitary type of system.

Agreed.

There is absolutely NO reason why a Country wouldn't "swamp" a naval vessel with ASM's.

You're just being pique : There are plenty of reasons why most countries (even western ones) wouldn't and couldn't saturate a modern integrated naval defense. Lack of networking, the need to spread inferior detection, tracking and delivery systems over a certain area, and the simple recognition that the people involved could never reliably pull off a DTOT engagement within the specified target's window (thus negating the benefit of training for said eventuality).

At any rate, the Israeli corvette didn't encounter a "swamp" attack, at least not in the way I understand your use of the term.

Also given the 17-20k range of the 76mm gun, WHY was the Israeli vessel so close?

Depends on how deeply they were conducting NGFS and whether they also wanted to monitor coastal movements.

The best explaination is: "shit happens."

BTW, the type of missile capability demonstrated is not normally associated with this confined locale. Styx derivitives are the famous hazard of the Straits of Hormuz and the Formosa. It will be interesting to see the "sell by date" on that missile.

I also think there needs to be a weapon system capable of engaging ultra-fast short ranged threats, as appears to be the case in Lebanon, with the Israeli craft. Phalanx SHOULD be capable of performing the role...

Whether 20mm or 30mm, 100-round bursts of DU or Tungsten can certainly make an impression. Accuracy and operator training is the key here. :kar

 

[Rykehaven]

Phalanx possibly needs a caliber upgrade to 25-35mm in order to ensure it is sufficiently capable of engaging a threat at sufficient range with sufficient "hitting power", but as long as the rate of fire remains the same and the accuracy of the radar/EO-IR system supporting it is adequate, I think this provides the best solution. Plus it obviously has great utility against surface threats and is likely to be far more effective than EO/IR guided heavy machine gun systems...

An increase in Phalanx's caliber would be inadvisable especially if you try to offset the engineering tradeoffs against its primary function (point missile defense). I'm not saying that it's undesirable, but the difference between the ideal and the feasible is stark.

I'm excluding the $ consideration in this post's cost-benefit analysis BTW...

For starters, you'd have to increase the barrel size and (ultimately) its weight, increase the torque/force generated by the pneumatic system to keep the firing mechanism moving at comparable speeds, change the mounting characteristics (recoil shocks and base structure), change the ammo handling system to account for larger, heavier rounds and the different weight ratios especially during swivel movement (CIWS uses the ammo drum to counter-balance its radome while minimizing the load on its motors). Heck, with all these modifications, you may have to buff up the entire servo system and create a higher power drain to the ship's generators (shipboard power generation is limited and you want to avoid the possibility of a load shunt during combat). You need more torque (accounting for added forces like the sea-state) to maintain a speedy swivel towards your target after the search-track handover.

No. The current caliber is here to stay. It's the best fit for Phalanx's range of functions - for many reasons. A ~30mm projectile would not appreciably increase its capability.

In fact, I think it would decrease it . Not only would you have a bulkier, more power-hungry piece of equipment, but you would have a smaller ammunition loadout (fewer rounds against an unknown number of missiles and boghammers). As a reminder, the purpose of an extremely short-pulsewidth radar is to detect and engage at minimal ranges. If you want to increase the distance between the target-intercept and your own ship, missiles are more suitable to the task. The watchword for the last-line-of-defense is "Reliability."

 

[jackehammond]

You don't need to destroy a missile on contact with a "wall of lead" (that rarely happens as it's supposed to, BTW). Even in sub-sonic engagements, the purpose of CIWS is to disturb the missile's airframe whose tolerances are measured in micrometers (and in some cases, nanometers). If a projectile so much as "nicks" the airframe, its structure will be peeled away like a bannana, or if it loses its trim first, it will simply tear itself apart. Conflagration occurs soon afterwards (usually the booster's fuel) and all of this takes less than a blink of an eye (which is a half second ).

Dear Members,

The above is true if the ASM is engaged at a longer range. But at the range the PHALANX and GOAKEEPER engages just "wounding" the missile would still most likely result in it crashing into the ship. The USN tested this over and over and discovered this. The purpose of a hit-to-kill (vs a proximity CIWS) system is to detonate its warhead.

Also there is the problem of smart bombs. They more than any weapon would keep on coming. And even dumb bombs dropped in salvo.

Jack E. Hammond

BTW> This business with the Israeli warship makes the second time the PHALANX failed because it was shut off. The other was the USS STARK.

 

[abramsteve]

Two questions. How long does it take the Phalanx system to go from off mode to ready to engage mode?

The second question:How hard would it be to swamp say an OHP class frigate with ASM's, Assuming she was operating on her own and possibly close(ish) to shore?

I agree with both Aussie Digger and Rykehaven, shit does happen, but there will be some lessons learned from the Israeli incident, especially with regards to joint service operations.

 

[contedicavour]

The way I see it, if you have a mix of medium range SAM, VSRAAD missiles AND a rapid fire gun you have all bases covered, at least in terms of self-protection for the vessel. Escort and wide area AA capability is lacking, but the vessel itself, provided it is equipped with adequate radar, fire control and ESM capabilities, should be able to put itself in harms way.

As to the particular weapon systems, I think a dedicated weapon like ESSM should be carried by major surface combatants regardless of their role. It's designed specifically to target ASM's, with anti-air only a secondary consideration. It's also designed to rapidly respond to threats being an exceptionally "fast" missile.

I also think there needs to be a weapon system capable of engaging ultra-fast short ranged threats, as appears to be the case in Lebanon, with the Israeli craft. Phalanx SHOULD be capable of performing the role, I know it's not as "long ranged" as RAM, Mistral or even Barak, but it HAS to be quicker firing and doesn't soley rely on the accuracy of the weapon system, unlike a missile. Proximity fuses are all well and good, but I personally believe an accurate "wall of lead" is going to stand a better chance as last ditch system than another missile system.

Phalanx possibly needs a calibre upgrade to 25-35mm in order to ensure it is sufficiently capable of engaging a threat at sufficient range with sufficient "hitting power", but as long as the rate of fire remains the same and the accuracy of the radar/EO-IR system supporting it is adequate, I think this provides the best solution. Plus it obviously has great utility against surface threats and is likely to be far more effective than EO/IR guided heavy machine gun systems...

Would a Navy actually fire a RAM or Mistral missile against a "terrorist" wooden fishing boat? It's more likely they'd engage it with HMG or small arms fire...

IF a vessel therefore can only have "2" weapon systems (as Australia's ANZAC class seem intended to do) than a medium ranged anti-ASM system like ESSM and Phalanx 1B (with upgraded calibre to 30mm if possible) would be my choice for the 2. The addition of RAM or similar would also be welcome, and you'll note that Australia's upgraded FFG frigates will mount a 76/62mm gun, ESSM, SM-2IIIA AND Phalanx, giving one of the tightest air defences around...

As to the Aster question, I think it's likely to prove a very effective defence system. I presume the 25mm is a radar/EO-IR guided CIWS system? If it's a "Typhoon" type system, I think it would have limited applicability in this scenario. The choice of 25mm calibre should at least confer better range and lethality, though I think a rapid fire 30mm cannon at least should be used in this role...

For the lack of turned on defensive systems, IMHO, if a vessel needs to shut off it's defensive systems because of deconfliction issues with a supporting air element, than the force needs some serious work on it's "jointery", ie: it's ability to form a seamless force able to work together.

This is something that Australia has been trying very hard to achieve. Modern IFF systems and robust rules of engagement should prevent or limit any sort of "Blue on Blue" incident and more advanced capabilities such as the USA's "Blue force tracker" or equivalent should allow force elements to work together at high operational rates.

I find it amazing that Israel was so lax or had such a lower opinion of their enemies that they allowed this to occur. Perhaps when the war is over it needs to look at involving itself in more "coalition" type military exercises and learn something about operating "jointly"...

An important point should also be taken from this attack. When war comes, you need to fight with what you have. RAN and the Australian Government have been procrastinating over the ANZAC frigate anti-ship missile defence upgrades for years. They currently appear less well defended than this Israeli Corvette. Hopefully this makes them sit up and take notice...

Thks very interesting. Actually on the Italian destroyers and aircraft carriers the 25mm is not intended as real CIWS (mostly anti-small fast boats, though fully automatic and radar/IR guided). The dedicated anti-missile weapons are the Asters and the 76mm S/R with guided (GPS/radio) ammunition. This is quite unusual, since instead of using smaller calibre fast-firing guns, our Navy prefers a mix of missiles and higher calibre guns, less "wall of lead", more guided heavy shots.
Hence my questioning of ESSM/SM2/Phalanx vs Aster15/30/76mmSR.
I know the debate has been raging in the Italian Navy for a decade, but Oto Melara's expertise in guided artillery persuaded the Navy to go towards this solution.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

You don't need to destroy a missile on contact with a "wall of lead" (that rarely happens as it's supposed to, BTW). Even in sub-sonic engagements, the purpose of CIWS is to disturb the missile's airframe whose tolerances are measured in micrometers (and in some cases, nanometers). If a projectile so much as "nicks" the airframe, its structure will be peeled away like a bannana, or if it loses its trim first, it will simply tear itself apart. Conflagration occurs soon afterwards (usually the booster's fuel) and all of this takes less than a blink of an eye (which is a half second ).

Dear Members,

The above is true if the ASM is engaged at a longer range. But at the range the PHALANX and GOAKEEPER engages just "wounding" the missile would still most likely result in it crashing into the ship. The USN tested this over and over and discovered this. The purpose of a hit-to-kill (vs a proximity CIWS) system is to detonate its warhead.

Also there is the problem of smart bombs. They more than any weapon would keep on coming. And even dumb bombs dropped in salvo.

Jack E. Hammond

BTW> This business with the Israeli warship makes the second time the PHALANX failed because it was shut off. The other was the USS STARK.

It's precisely to avoid being hit by an already wounded incoming missile (or bits of it) that I prefer a mix of missiles and higher calibre guided rounds (even if less are being shot overall), in order to maximise the chances the incoming missile is completely destroyed.
Especially if it is a supersonic "heavy" such as Sunburn SS-N-22.

cheers

 

[Rykehaven]

The above is true if the ASM is engaged at a longer range. But at the range the PHALANX and GOAKEEPER engages just "wounding" the missile would still most likely result in it crashing into the ship. The USN tested this over and over and discovered this. The purpose of a hit-to-kill (vs a proximity CIWS) system is to detonate its warhead.

To a degree, this is true, but with qualifications.

First, the shrapnel from a defunct missile is far less dangerous than if the missile achieved a direct hit and expended all of its energy on your ship. If a piece of the missile still hurtles in at dangerous speeds, CIWS will continue to engage for as long as there's a radar signature. The vast majority of the wreckage falls harmlessly into the sea.

As for detonation, that's a little more complicated :el . The payloads are relatively stable (for safe handling and launch); we're not talking about firecrackers that will be set off at the light of a match. We're talking about explosive compounds that require a specialized detonator. If the missile doesn't detonate correctly, it expends itself very inefficiently. That's why most of what you see initially when the missile breaks apart is the result of the rocket fuel (fireball), NOT the payload. Some of the explosive might go with it, but it only "fizzles" and (once again) the effect is not as dramatic as a skin-to-skin intercept with a total detonation. In fact, it's better for the targeted ship if the CIWS does NOT trigger the whole payload at close range.

The purpose of CIWS is to kill the vehicle with as close to 100% accuracy as humanly possible, shrapnel or no. If a navy wants to avoid damage in absolute terms, there is no such system available to guarantee that end. If it goes solely with missiles, it's exposed itself to an all-or-nothing approach. And in almost every case, hitting a missile with another missile has a far lower chance of success than putting up a "wall of lead", especially if you factor in combat conditions.

Also there is the problem of smart bombs. They more than any weapon would keep on coming. And even dumb bombs dropped in salvo.

Most US Navy Captains would invite enemy planes to try to drop bombs on them rather than firing ASMs at a standoff range. And if the ship has such a poor AAW capability that it allows the fighter/bomber to hover above it, well...

BTW> This business with the Israeli warship makes the second time the PHALANX failed because it was shut off. The other was the USS STARK.

Phalanx kills anything that meets its engagement criteria. There is no IFF built into the system; it relies on extraneous means of identification. Apparently, the Israeli ROEs prevented them from using its Auto capability. I wonder if they even had it loaded .

It's a judgement call with alot of unknowns and there are pitfalls no matter which way you jump. And because they weren't going into a situation where they believed they would see vampyres, they reportedly left it off to accomplish their mission in littoral waters.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

Hmm.. The Kashtan complex on Russian destroyer has both guns and missiles.

The guns are 30mm with a combined rate of fire of 10,000 rounds a minute (!)
The missiles have a range of up to 8-9 km.
Could be the most effective system?

The Kuznetsov have eight of those babies, in addition to 192 (!) vertical launched SA-15 missiles.
Who said that Russian are not fine guys?

The dedicated anti-missile weapons are the Asters and the 76mm S/R with guided (GPS/radio) ammunition. This is quite unusual, since instead of using smaller calibre fast-firing guns, our Navy prefers a mix of missiles and higher calibre guns, less "wall of lead", more guided heavy shots.

I remember that during the falkland war a British destroyer managed to destroy an incoming Exocet with a unguided round from a 114mm gun... =) (perhaps luckyli, but it happened), while missiles (Seawolf Block 0 and Sea-Dart) were not able to track such a sea-skimming target.

 

[Rykehaven]

Two questions. How long does it take the Phalanx system to go from off mode to ready to engage mode?

I'm not sure many people would deign to answer your first question even if they knew . At any rate, I would be concerned about ROEs, ELINT, and the time it takes the crew to change defensive postures once they discovered they were under threat (if they didn't know it in the beginning which is what everyone says happened to the Israelis).

The second question: How hard would it be to swamp say an OHP class frigate with ASM's, Assuming she was operating on her own and possibly close(ish) to shore?

That's a loaded question worthy of its own thread. Isn't the OHP class principally an ASW ship ?

Taking into account the broad range of naval vessels (and the fact that you didn't specify the system configuration of this particular OHP, many don't even have missile launchers), I would rate its AAW capability as a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 - But DON'T ask me to explain why .

 

[Rykehaven]

Hmm.. The Kashtan complex on Russian destroyer has both guns and missiles.

The guns are 30mm with a combined rate of fire of 10,000 rounds a minute (!)
The missiles have a range of up to 8-9 km.
Could be the most effective system?

The Kuznetsov have eight of those babies, in addition to 192 (!) vertical launched SA-15 missiles.

That's a nice layered defense :dance .

 

[kams]

Lebanese coast getting crowded

The labanese coast is getting awfully crowded with warships from many countries trying to evacuate their citizens. US is sending 5 ships along with 2000 marines, UK has a destroyer in the port, and now India is sending 4 ships (1 Destroyer, 2 frigates and a tanker).

Indian navy heads to Lebanon

Thats lot of targets for Hezbollah Missiles...almost all the ships are enemies of Iran.

 

[abramsteve]

I'm not sure many people would deign to answer your first question even if they knew . At any rate, I would be concerned about ROEs, ELINT, and the time it takes the crew to change defensive postures once they discovered they were under threat (if they didn't know it in the beginning which is what everyone says happened to the Israelis).



That's a loaded question worthy of its own thread. Isn't the OHP class principally an ASW ship ?

Taking into account the broad range of naval vessels (and the fact that you didn't specify the system configuration of this particular OHP, many don't even have missile launchers), I would rate its AAW capability as a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10 - But DON'T ask me to explain why .

Fair enough mate, as soon as I saw that question actually on the screen I thought that maybe I'd get an answer like that!

As for the OHP question, I was thinking along the lines of one refited along the lines of the HMAS Sydney, which I believe has fairly capable AAW capabilities (I think ???)

My level of knowledge of modern naval warfare and its systems is, unfortunatley, limited! Cheers for the answers!

 

[.pt]

vessels

I´ll bet that will strain the israeli embargo, and will put to test their IFF capabilities. One wrong shot, and you have an international incident on your hands.
As for Hizbollah i dont think they will atack those vessels, unless they want to blame the Israelis on any such atack. I would think any modern navy vessels will have surveillance capabilities to monitor and determine source of missiles, at least to some extent, and they will log that, so as to avoid that kind of thing,i believe.
Back to topic, What if, suposedly, the Hizbollah could launch another missile atack, perhaps making a salvo, with some ASM such as that C802, in sufficient quantitys, say 4 or 5missiles at same time,can any CIWS system cope well with that many simultaneous targets? What would be the practical limit on such systems on a a single ship? And wouldnt different flight paths and attack direction also negate the CIWS response? All this in a very near detection and limited time frame to respond.
Thanks for all the iimput.
.pt