Modern CIWS systems

[Big-E]

I like the looks of the KASHTAN-M. It's like a dual Vulcan with RAM installed.
Three in one...

http://www.shipunov.com/eng/kvnk/kashtan_m.htm

What do you guys think?

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

Sure it's a nice CIWS...
I'm curious to compare that kind of system with the efficientcy of a couple of 76mm SR with a PDMS like Mistral IR or VL Seawolf...

 

[tphuang]

I like the looks of the KASHTAN-M. It's like a dual Vulcan with RAM installed.
Three in one...

http://www.shipunov.com/eng/kvnk/kashtan_m.htm

What do you guys think?

PLAN wasn't that impressed by its performance when they sent people down to Russia to see its test firing and such.

 

[stryker NZ]

the Indian Navy seemed to approve of them isnt that the CIWS they installed on their Talwar class guided missile frigates if it is they look even cooler close up ive seen them on the INS Tabar

 

[contedicavour]

Mixing short range SAMs with fast guns into a combined CIWS is becoming quite fashionable lately... Oto Melara of Italy's Finmeccanica has just presented at Bourget a prototype mixing 25mm CIWS with a module for 4 or 6 short range SAMs.
However I'm still a fan of pure SAM (as with RAM) or of heavier calibre guided ammunition guns (as with Vulcano-Strales 76/62 SR with ER ammunition) since the good old "wall of fire" argument 2 or 3 km away from the ship doesn't convince me in the age of very "smart" hypersonic cruise missiles with big warheads that can do a lot of damage even by exploding a km away from the ship...

cheers

 

[Pathfinder-X]

PLAN wasn't that impressed by its performance when they sent people down to Russia to see its test firing and such.

They had the system installed on their latest Sovremenny so they can't be that unimpressed.

 

[contedicavour]

They had the system installed on their latest Sovremenny so they can't be that unimpressed.

Besides, they really don't have much of a choice, do they... the best Russian CIWS is Kashtan. Unless the PLAN finds a way out of military embargoes and manages to procure Western systems such as RAM, Sadral, Goalkeeper, Phalanx or the Strales/Vulcano system.
Btw I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of local copy of the systems listed above emerging from Chinese defence industries in some time

cheers

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Besides, they really don't have much of a choice, do they... the best Russian CIWS is Kashtan. Unless the PLAN finds a way out of military embargoes and manages to procure Western systems such as RAM, Sadral, Goalkeeper, Phalanx or the Strales/Vulcano system.
Btw I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of local copy of the systems listed above emerging from Chinese defence industries in some time

cheers

They do produce their own CIWS system, known as the Type 730. It has a very similar appearance to the Goalkeeper, although they say it has some French SAMOS roots. Currently the system is installed aboard the 052B, 052C and possibly 051C destroyers. As to why the system is not used on the Sovres, the only explanation I can think of is that the Russians won't allow it. A contract in 1993 also allowed China to produce AK630 locally.

With that said, they have no shipborn missile/gun system like Kashtan at the moment.

 

[tphuang]

They had the system installed on their latest Sovremenny so they can't be that unimpressed.

well, I haven't seen any kind of Chinese system installed on Russian platforms. They normally just get them asap. If you notice, stuff like shtil,ka-28,MR-90, bandstand from Sovs have all basically been bought or copied for other PLAN combat ships, but Kashtan hasn't.

PLAN is far more satisfied with the performance of type 730 CIWS than kashtan.

 

[contedicavour]

They do produce their own CIWS system, known as the Type 730. It has a very similar appearance to the Goalkeeper, although they say it has some French SAMOS roots. Currently the system is installed aboard the 052B, 052C and possibly 051C destroyers. As to why the system is not used on the Sovres, the only explanation I can think of is that the Russians won't allow it. A contract in 1993 also allowed China to produce AK630 locally.

With that said, they have no shipborn missile/gun system like Kashtan at the moment.

Thks a lot, very interesting. It's true it looks a lot like Goalkeeper !!

cheers

 

[tatra]

well, I haven't seen any kind of Chinese system installed on Russian platforms. They normally just get them asap. If you notice, stuff like shtil,ka-28,MR-90, bandstand from Sovs have all basically been bought or copied for other PLAN combat ships, but Kashtan hasn't.

PLAN is far more satisfied with the performance of type 730 CIWS than kashtan.

Kashtan WAS bought by PLAN (sovremenny mod). So, you're saying that Kashtan isn't good enough because it wasn't copied by the chinese, right? Did it ever occur to you there may be other reasons why it was not copied? And who says all the other stuff was copied? Thus far, with exception of Ak630 and AK-176 no weaponry was copied. And as far as radars are concerned, while there may a chinese radar that look similar to to Fregat MAE, this does not mean it's a copy. Likewise Bandstand.

 

[tphuang]

Kashtan WAS bought by PLAN (sovremenny mod). So, you're saying that Kashtan isn't good enough because it wasn't copied by the chinese, right? Did it ever occur to you there may be other reasons why it was not copied? And who says all the other stuff was copied? Thus far, with exception of Ak630 and AK-176 no weaponry was copied. And as far as radars are concerned, while there may a chinese radar that look similar to to Fregat MAE, this does not mean it's a copy. Likewise Bandstand.

I'm saying that's one of the evidences. I'm saying that China sent people down to Russia to see Kashtan and they weren't too impressed by its performance. The fact that you have missiles and gun doesn't make it superior to other contemporary CIWS like Phalanx and Goalkeeper.

 

[Wooki]

I like the looks of the KASHTAN-M. It's like a dual Vulcan with RAM installed.
Three in one...

http://www.shipunov.com/eng/kvnk/kashtan_m.htm

What do you guys think?

Well,

I reckon the concept is a good one... Particularly if it include this beasty

700rnds/minute and very simple to operate, so you lay 4 mk30-2 in a quad mount with a quad RAM

for smaller vessels you could go with the stinger and twin mount combo.. something like that.

Anyway, in my book the Mk30-2 is the gun to beat in the 30mm category. Its FSAPDS could take out any forseeable Anti Shipping Missile uparmored to the whazoo. Whereas the Russian 30mms suffer from lack of muzzle velocity.

cheers

w

 

[rossfrb_1]

new Bolides based system

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jmr/jmr070111_1_n.shtml
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Rheinmetall, Saab offer naval ASRAD-R [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

By Miroslav Gyurosi

Rheinmetall Defence Electronics and Saab Bofors Dynamics are jointly developing a naval air-defence version of the Atlas Short-Range Air Defence (ASRAD-R) light surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. It will face competition from a naval version of the Poprad, a lightweight system based on the ZM Mesko Grom infrared-guided SAM.

The new ASRAD-R Naval Air Defence System combines a remotely controlled ASRAD weapon pedestal carrying four Bolide laser beam-riding SAMs (a further development of the highly successful RBS 70 Mk 2) and an electro-optic sensor package. Suitable for use on all sizes of warship, it is intended to provide a defence against low-flying fixed-wing and rotary-wing threats.

Polish company CNPEP Radwar has been promoting a proposed naval version of its land-based Poprad, a vehicle-based short-range SAM system whose launch pedestal carries four ready-to-fire Grom missiles - a weapon originally developed as a man-portable air-defence system (MANPADS).

Although CNPEP Radwar has displayed a scale model of a ship's bow fitted with a navalised Poprad launcher installation, work on this proposed variant is still at a very early stage.

171 of 485 words
© 2006 Jane's Information Group
[End of non-subscriber extract] "


Given that the ADF already operates the Bolides version of the missile, does this system become a possible contender for the CIWS for AWD/ANZACs? (Where previously Mistral and RAMs were the only rumoured contenders)
I don't know whether the RAN has or has not decided whether ISSM alone (in the case of the ANZACs) is sufficient for the job.
I do note that this system doesn't seem suitable for taking out incoming ASMs and I'm unsure of where this ranks in terms of desirability for the RAN.
rb
[/FONT]

 

[rossfrb_1]

Well,

I reckon the concept is a good one... Particularly if it include this beasty

700rnds/minute and very simple to operate, so you lay 4 mk30-2 in a quad mount with a quad RAM

for smaller vessels you could go with the stinger and twin mount combo.. something like that.

Anyway, in my book the Mk30-2 is the gun to beat in the 30mm category. Its FSAPDS could take out any forseeable Anti Shipping Missile uparmored to the whazoo. Whereas the Russian 30mms suffer from lack of muzzle velocity.

cheers

w

I'd be curious to know what you think of the effectiveness of the 35mm with AHEAD ammunition in comparison to the 30mm? And why choose 30mm over the 35mm?
Either the rheinmetall twin mount
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/img/SG3-8_42FM0502-1.jpg
or the revolver based Millenium
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/img/MA-9_41FM0602-36.jpg

Granted, the 35mm AHEAD ammunition adds a level of complexity with regards the fusing of the rounds (but as I understand it, this is relatively easy these days) and a Millenium type solution probably wouldn't scale down for smaller vessels(?)
I just found a link which suggests that the 30mm round is getting an airburst capability. AND is being qualified for the Mk30-2!
http://defense-update.com/products/a/ahead.htm

So which 30mm round would be more desirable for CIWS use, ABM or fsapds? Maybe the ability to quickly switch between the two (dual feed)?

rb

 

[Tasman]

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jmr/jmr070111_1_n.shtml
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Rheinmetall, Saab offer naval ASRAD-R [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

By Miroslav Gyurosi

Rheinmetall Defence Electronics and Saab Bofors Dynamics are jointly developing a naval air-defence version of the Atlas Short-Range Air Defence (ASRAD-R) light surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. It will face competition from a naval version of the Poprad, a lightweight system based on the ZM Mesko Grom infrared-guided SAM.

The new ASRAD-R Naval Air Defence System combines a remotely controlled ASRAD weapon pedestal carrying four Bolide laser beam-riding SAMs (a further development of the highly successful RBS 70 Mk 2) and an electro-optic sensor package. Suitable for use on all sizes of warship, it is intended to provide a defence against low-flying fixed-wing and rotary-wing threats.

Polish company CNPEP Radwar has been promoting a proposed naval version of its land-based Poprad, a vehicle-based short-range SAM system whose launch pedestal carries four ready-to-fire Grom missiles - a weapon originally developed as a man-portable air-defence system (MANPADS).

Although CNPEP Radwar has displayed a scale model of a ship's bow fitted with a navalised Poprad launcher installation, work on this proposed variant is still at a very early stage.

171 of 485 words
© 2006 Jane's Information Group
[End of non-subscriber extract] "


Given that the ADF already operates the Bolides version of the missile, does this system become a possible contender for the CIWS for AWD/ANZACs? (Where previously Mistral and RAMs were the only rumoured contenders)
I don't know whether the RAN has or has not decided whether ISSM alone (in the case of the ANZACs) is sufficient for the job.
I do note that this system doesn't seem suitable for taking out incoming ASMs and I'm unsure of where this ranks in terms of desirability for the RAN.
rb
[/FONT]

To my knowledge the RAN hasn't made a decision yet as to whether it will definitely mount a VSRAD system on its Anzacs.

Have a look at AD's Post 18 in 'Anzac Ship Upgrades':

Originally Posted by Aussie Digger

As to the CIWS issue, as I understand it, Phalanx could be integrated quite quickly (a matter of hours if not days) if necessary as the major parts required (baseplate etc) are already installed. The fact that this has never been done though even on numerous operational deployments, shows A) how confident RAN must be in ESSM and B) the sort of confidence it has in Phalanx, as RAN has plenty of Phalanx systems it COULD deploy aboard an ANZAC frigate if it wanted to.

As to the ASMD upgrade a "2nd layer" "very short ranged air defence" (VSRAD) system was to be included under the original "2nd channel of fire" proposal I mentioned earlier. No definite system was officially announced by Government or RAN, but it was widely reported within Australian Defence and Defence Industry circles that the "Mistral" missile (in either SIMBAD or SADRAL form) was the likely system.

Now that this "2nd channel of fire" capability is to be greatly exceeded by the 3D radar with it's "multiple channels of fire" capability, RAN is reportedly now re-assessing whether it needs the 2nd VSRAD capability anymore.

The thinking behind this is that since the new radar/combat system combo can control numerous missiles simultaneously, can ESSM do the job all by itself and given that ESSM is far more capable than RAM, Mistral or any other such system, would this then be sufficient for RAN's total ASMD needs???

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5132&page=2

I expect that the RAN would want a second tier system to be able to take out any target, including AS missiles so any system selected would presumably need to meet this criterion. If a VSRAD sytem is not fitted to the Anzacs I believe that the second Mk41 VLS system ought to be fitted to provide a total of 64 ESSMs.

Cheers

 

[Falstaff]

Whenever I think of CIWS a few questions come to my mind, which I have because of the total abscence of knowledge about the true performance data of different CIWS-systems. By that I don't mean range or firing rate but how effective these things actually are against e.g. multi angle saturation attacks and tricky flight paths.

1. As far as I can see the Zumwalt class won't have a barreled CIWS at all and will rely on missiles only. And it won't have RAM either. Perhaps that's due to stealth issues. But I wonder if the days of the multi-layered = multi sytem missile defence are over?

2. The LCS relies on RAM as a CIWS only. So does the whole german navy, which (besides the fact that RAM is a american/german development) doesn't employ barreled CIWS at all, although it sure could get Phalanx or Goalkeeper very easily. The new MLG 27 too doesn't have an anti-missile capability. So why is that? Could it be that the barreled CIWSs aren't that effective at all? (Yes, I know I'm german, but I think one can say objectively that the german navy may be slow sometimes but judges and choses their systems very carefully)

3. The Brit's claim the Principal missile system is the only that can defeat the Club- Given that this is true (I personally don't know if it is too wise to claim that and not leave the Club-users with a little more confidence) are modern AShM with their enhanced flight paths too hard to defeat for the present day CIWSs?

4. What has become of the Metalstorm? Perhaps one of the Australien buddies here knows about it?

Perhaps somebody knows more than I do and can answer my questions.

 

[Grand Danois]

Whenever I think of CIWS a few questions come to my mind, which I have because of the total abscence of knowledge about the true performance data of different CIWS-systems. By that I don't mean range or firing rate but how effective these things actually are against e.g. multi angle saturation attacks and tricky flight paths.

1. As far as I can see the Zumwalt class won't have a barreled CIWS at all and will rely on missiles only. And it won't have RAM either. Perhaps that's due to stealth issues. But I wonder if the days of the multi-layered = multi sytem missile defence are over?

As I understand things, the Zumwalts are going to rely on ESSMs for close in defence as they are more than capable of this. So the Phalanx is apparently considered redundant and that redundancy also covers the RAM. The standoff range of a 20 mm gun is too low also. I'm not of the impression that this choice is stealth related.

2. The LCS relies on RAM as a CIWS only. So does the whole german navy, which (besides the fact that RAM is a american/german development) doesn't employ barreled CIWS at all, although it sure could get Phalanx or Goalkeeper very easily. The new MLG 27 too doesn't have an anti-missile capability. So why is that? Could it be that the barreled CIWSs aren't that effective at all? (Yes, I know I'm german, but I think one can say objectively that the german navy may be slow sometimes but judges and choses their systems very carefully)

RAM has a longer engagement range and can counter maneuvering missiles at these ranges much better than a gun. The excellent 27mm gun is for protection against surface threats. No reason to put high-end fire controls on such a weapon.

3. The Brit's claim the Principal missile system is the only that can defeat the Club- Given that this is true (I personally don't know if it is too wise to claim that and not leave the Club-users with a little more confidence) are modern AShM with their enhanced flight paths too hard to defeat for the present day CIWSs?

I'm not sure the Brits are laying claim to that it will be the only system that could counter Klubs, but it was high on the list when the spec was written. Present day AShM should preferably defeated at a distance so that the vessel don't get hit by debris. Standoff range.

4. What has become of the Metalstorm? Perhaps one of the Australien buddies here knows about it?

Perhaps somebody knows more than I do and can answer my questions.

Oh, I'll leave that to the Aussies.

Anyhow, in extension of rossfrb_1's question, I would just love to hear what the resident gun bunnies have to say on the two different ammunition concepts that Phalanx and Milleniums AHEAD represents.

The 14mm saboted tungsten vs the 35mm cloud of tungsten pellets...

...and then there is also Davide, yet another concept...

 

[Aussie Digger]

4. What has become of the Metalstorm? Perhaps one of the Australien buddies here knows about it?

Perhaps somebody knows more than I do and can answer my questions.

Metal Storm is stil trading, though as far as I know, it has never actually made a proft. I understand it's about to launch a float (or at least did so recently) to gain additional capital...

They seemed to be pinning their initial hopes on an ADF purchase of either their "under barrel" 40mm launching system, or their "area denial" weapon system.

Army has shown some interest in the "under barrel" weapon. Don't know about the rest of their gear. GF could probably offer a few more
insights...

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Metal Storm is stil trading, though as far as I know, it has never actually made a proft. I understand it's about to launch a float (or at least did so recently) to gain additional capital...

They seemed to be pinning their initial hopes on an ADF purchase of either their "under barrel" 40mm launching system, or their "area denial" weapon system.

Army has shown some interest in the "under barrel" weapon. Don't know about the rest of their gear. GF could probably offer a few more
insights...

Just saw a program on discovery channel with the Vice President of Metal Storm explaining/advertising his handgun. Pretty neat stuff, since 3 or more rounds can be fired before the recoil is felt. It literally torn a body armour to shreds in a test.

They seem to have big plans for their product, although they haven't earned a dime yet. The concept certainly sounds good on paper, but we'll just have to wait a bit to see if it lives up to the hype.