CIWS systems

[Lucasnz]

MANPADS as CIWS

I notice that the French use Mistral as Air Defence on a number of there ships. How effective is Mistral in the Anti Missile role, using either the manual or the six pack version. With a range of 5-6km, is that effective for the air defence / anti missile role.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

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).

France has send a LHD (the "Sirocco" Foudre class) with its escort (but I duno what ships are involved) and motorized infantry (the "chasseurs alpins" elite infantry).

However,

I notice that the French use Mistral as Air Defence on a number of there ships.

French ships usually have very limited AAW capabilities.
The majority of our destroyer use the Crotale system as the primary anti-air weapon, the problem is that Crotale is an ACLOS system, thus the target has to be tracked, until the missile hits it, by the lancher, and though it uses an high velocity missile (range 12-13 km at M 3.5), it is not enough to intercept multiple target.
It is often combined with Mistrals in 6 packs, with a launcher on each board of the ship. Its kill ratio is claimed to be 93% and very effective in a anti missile role.
In addition, as do the Italiens, we use our 100mm gun with proximity-fuzed frag shells to defend the ship against aircraft and incoming missiles. Rate of fire is more than 1 shot/second.
To deal with small bots and suicide crafts, we have several manual operated 20mm guns and 12.7mm, and on some ships 30mm guns with E/O FCS.

But let's no forget the EW, the use of chaff, off-board decoys and blippers in helos can deceive most of older missiles.

And after all, training is the most important part. When a new echo appears on the radar, the crew has to identify, classify the target. This process can take time, and when encountering a M 2 heavy anti-ship missile, training and combat drills are the most important points in my view. The British type 42 destroyer sunk in the Falklands emphasizes this point. The crew wasn't prepared to deal with a anti-ship missile, so when the exocet hit the ship, the combat system was still in stand by...

 

[jackehammond]

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.

Dear Member,

The Phalanx has three settings: Off, Automatic and Hold Fire. Off, means it can't fire period. Automatic, means it is gunning for anything coming within range. Hold Fire, means it does not engage unless someone hits a pretty big button -- ie it searches, aims and fires only if told to. When in automatic, there is a reverse hold fire where hitting the button will prevent a firing. The hold fire is for when operating near friendly aircraft and helicopters.

Finally, let us remember that the job of CIWS is "last ditch". They are not intended to be the primary defense of a warship against antishipping missiles.

Jack E. Hammond

 

[contedicavour]

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.

We've got the De La Penne DDG (our best AAW ship class, pending full operational status of the Doria and Duilio, the 2 Horizon DDGs) and the San Giorgio LPD(H). Now that the threat is known, we should be able to handle incoming SSMs, provided Hezbollahs aren't launching too many simultaneously when the ships are too close to shore.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

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

A modern FFG or DDG (fully alert and not too close to shore) is supposed to be able to destroy a salvo of 4-5 incoming SSMs, 2 or 3 with Aster/ESSMs and the remaining ones with the CIWS artillery + chaff&flare without mentioning ECM that should divert a few.

cheers

 

[Sanguinius]

jackehammond not to accurate but i works like that!

 

[rossfrb_1]

anyone got any info on this item?
Phalanx_Close-In_Weapons_Systems
"
Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems to be Modified for Pak, Aus
US Department of Defense
September 15th, 2006, 12:22


Raytheon Co., Tucson, Ariz. is being awarded a $369,059,572 firm-fixed-price modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-04-C-5460) for Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems and associated spares for FY06 Navy (51 percent), Army (35 percent), and the Governments of Pakistan (12.8 percent) and Australia (1.2 percent) under the foreign military sales requirements.

Phalanx close-in Weapon System (CIWS) is a fast reaction terminal defense against low and high flying, high-speed maneuvering anti-ship missile threats that have penetrated all other ships’ defenses.

The CIWS is an integral element of the Fleet Defense In-Depth concept and the Ship Self-Defense Program. Operating either autonomously or integrated with a combat system, it is an automatic terminal defense weapon system designed to detect, track, engage, and destroy anti-ship missile threats penetrating other defense envelopes.

Phalanx CIWS is currently installed on approximately 187 Navy ships and is in use in 20 foreign navies. The Army is deploying a land-based system known as the Land-based Phalanx Weapon System.

Work will be performed in Louisville, Ky. and is expected to be completed December 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $7,282,107 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. "


Is this some form of block upgrade?
If the system is used by 20 navies, then why is only US army & navy, Pakistan and OZ involved in this particular upgrade?

Only other mention I could quickly find (basically a rehash)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4184892.html

rb

 

[armage]

I believe that the Millenium CIWS is soon going to replace the
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/KDGturret.jpg
Semms like a pretty nice system

March 2002 Lockheed Martin, Akron, Ohio, and Oerlikon Contraves, Zurich, Switzerland, joined forces to produce and market the rapid-fire Millennium Gun. The Millennium Gun is the only multi-mission close-in weapon system capable of engaging fast-attack surface craft and near-shore land targets in littoral and riverine waters, as well as defending against anti-ship missiles and aircraft in all environments.

The gun's highly effective inner layer defense capability extends ship self-protection to ranges greater than any other close-in weapon systems. Creating a "wall of steel," the Millennium Gun fires 35-mm ammunition, including the advanced Ahead round, at 1,000 rounds per minute. Each Ahead round dispenses 152 subprojectiles that form a cone-shaped pattern. The subprojectiles destroy a target's control surfaces, seeker and other vital components as it moves through the wall of steel.

The Millennium Gun is a low-cost, unmanned, remotely controlled gun mount. It is compatible with all modern and legacy sensors and fire control systems. It fits on a number of ship classes, including such advanced designs as the U.S. Coast Guard National Security Cutter and the Littoral Combat Ship. Oerlikon Contraves has received expressions of interest from several navies for mounts on frigates and corvettes.

The Millennium Gun will give navies a multimission-capable deck gun, defending against sea-skimming cruise missiles and other air threats in the open ocean and against the asymmetric threat of small surface craft in littoral and riverine waters.

The gun's kill radius varies according to the type of threat it engages. Testing has shown it to be lethal against aircraft and helicopters at 3.5 km, against cruise missiles at 2 km, and against anti-ship sea-skimming missiles at 1.5 km. These distances extend the close-in defensive perimeter and the time available for a ship to engage and destroy an imminent threat

The Millennium Gun's versatility and modularity was demonstrated during the U.S. Navy's Fleet Battle Experiment-Juliet, scheduled for July and August 2002. Lockheed Martin's Sea SLICE, an advanced technology demonstrator vessel participating in the exercise, was fitted with the Millennium Gun on its bow. The exercise highlighted the gun's adaptability to fit on a number of ship classes. Its low weight, small footprint and easy loading of ammunition make it ideal for new ship construction and existing ships earmarked for modernization.

 

[contedicavour]

Very interesting. Does this mean that Millenium is now the official follow-on to Phalanx ? AFAIK it starts however with a big handicap as its main potential customer (the USN) is using RAM or a larger-calibre CIGS (which for me is no CIWS by the way)...

It would be interesting to find out which markets Oerlikon is targeting.

cheers

 

[LancerMc]

Has anyone heard rumors of the USN and Singapore testing a CIWS version of Metal Storm. I had heard this past summer there were going to be a test of newly developed system in Singapore. The USN hoped it would be an excellent system to defend against missiles and small craft (sucidial attacks like in Yemen). Though no reports came out if they actually completed the test or if was at all successful. I would think Metal Storm would make an excellent system since it can put rounds into the air like no other system in the world.

 

[adsH]

Dear Member,

The Phalanx has three settings: Off, Automatic and Hold Fire. Off, means it can't fire period. Automatic, means it is gunning for anything coming within range. Hold Fire, means it does not engage unless someone hits a pretty big button -- ie it searches, aims and fires only if told to. When in automatic, there is a reverse hold fire where hitting the button will prevent a firing. The hold fire is for when operating near friendly aircraft and helicopters.

Finally, let us remember that the job of CIWS is "last ditch". They are not intended to be the primary defense of a warship against antishipping missiles.

Jack E. Hammond

is the this case with the Newer Batch Phalanx System, can't they operate under Automatic and identify Friendly assets through IFF. To be honest i understand why it would take out anything headed its way.

 

[mikehotwheelz]

Either/Or?

The Royal Navy employs both 30mm Goalkeeper AND 20mm Phalanx on its ships. Could someone explain why they go for two different systems?

 

[contedicavour]

The Royal Navy employs both 30mm Goalkeeper AND 20mm Phalanx on its ships. Could someone explain why they go for two different systems?

The fact that the most recent ships use Goalkeeper says a lot about RN preferences I have in mind the Ark Royal and the latest Type 42.
The Darings are fitted for but not with Phalanx.
It will be interesting to see what is fitted aboard the Queen Elizabeth carriers.

cheers

 

[tatra]

The fact that the most recent ships use Goalkeeper says a lot about RN preferences I have in mind the Ark Royal and the latest Type 42.
The Darings are fitted for but not with Phalanx.
It will be interesting to see what is fitted aboard the Queen Elizabeth carriers.

cheers

RN took the larger and heavier Goalkeepers because that was a condition of the Dutch, who purchased Rolls Royce gas turbines for their ships. Goalkeeper is a good system, just a tad heavier and bulkier than Phalanx. But why UK didn't get (Sea)RAM instead ....?

 

[RubiconNZ]

RN took the larger and heavier Goalkeepers because that was a condition of the Dutch, who purchased Rolls Royce gas turbines for their ships. Goalkeeper is a good system, just a tad heavier and bulkier than Phalanx. But why UK didn't get (Sea)RAM instead ....?

I'm sure cost and servicability was something to do with it.

 

[tatra]

I'm sure cost and servicability was something to do with it.

Good of you to mention that, I had gotten a little cynical.