Which is great until you exhaust your Sea Ceptor magazine. Then you have to rely on ESSM Blk II and once you exhaust that magazine you are buggered. At least with a cannon CIWS you can store a significant amount of ammunition for it. The 20mm Phalanx is obsolete now, so you need something larger with longer range because you are looking at supersonic AShM now.
Honestly, if I'm exhausting 32 ESSM II (quad pack in 8 launchers) and then 24 Sea Ceptor missiles (quad packed in 6 launchers) I'm pretty sure no level of effort with a gun is going to save the ship. Assuming a probability of kill 50% per missile fired in defense that means the enemy has fired somewhere around 28 missiles at my ship.
Missiles and guns aren't the only defence against ASMs. Everyone always ignores soft kill systems such as EW and decoys. In an age of advanced hypersonic anti-ship weapons, soft kill system are more effective than hard kill systems and are the real future of ship defence.
Most ships packing air defence missiles are not only defending themselves but also are a part of the protective screen for other ships - LHD's, Supply ships Oilers etc. which are not air-defence equipped.
This is true. SM/Aster family of missiles are best for area air defence (which is why all those AAW destroyers pack those types). ESSM/Sea Ceptor are point defence, and if the attack is coming in on your "point" of the compass you could defend your high-value units (HVU) with those weapons as if they were attacking you.
Yes and no on ESSM. The flexibility of missile depends as much on the combat system and sensors as the missile itself. As a case in point; the CEAFAR and SAAB 9LV set up on the the ANZAC frigates can handle crossing missiles headed for other ships (this was tested with Coyote supersonic targets). Certainly a few more missiles would be helpful where the system has that capability.
If we're using the upcoming Canadian version of the Type 26 as an example I think you've got it reversed. The CSC will leverage it's radar to detect modern ASM at a greater distance and use ESSM for out to the horizon or just beyond range engagements... Sea Ceptor / soft kill will likely be left for whatever makes it through. The OTO 5" could also fill in I suppose but soft kill is probably more effective as already pointed out. Carrying missiles like ESSM (or the extended range Sea Ceptor) in large numbers will be crucial in a future near-peer conflict...which is why I desperately wish the CSC would increase it's mk41 cell capacity. Theoretically, even with a 32 cell mk41 the CSC could sail with 16xSM-2/6; 64 ESSM & 24 Sea Ceptor... in a task force configuration this would be over 400 SAM's (this is provided we even buy this many missiles)
I used to do some natural hazards stuff in my previous work and we always worked from the worst set of environmental circumstances because that was what we were required to plan for. Living in a country that is a geologists dream, regularly presenting just about every natural hazard possible, we have a lot to choose from. I would argue that the same applies when you are designing shipboard defence, especially combat vessels. In the last 20 years AShM capabilities have advanced rapidly with more capable ones available.
And with Ram/Sea Ram. Another factor is that unlike other navies with smaller calibre guns with a higher ROF capable of firing ammo like 3P; the USN mostly relies on 127mm main guns which are very useful for various things but less so for engaging a fast moving small object coming n at high speed at at low altitude.
This would apply to everyone else also wouldn't it? I can't think of an example where anyone has actually had to deal with an actual supersonic sea skimmer in a real life situation. A USN ship fired ESSM at incoming ASMs in 2016 off Yemen but they were older gen subsonic ones. Not easy to do but a nightmare scenario would be an opponent being able to coordinate a simultaneous attack on a naval task group using air, sea and land launched ASMS from different directions backed by heavy jamming.
127mm with Hyper Velocity projectiles are being considered for missile defense because of their rapid time to intercept and ability to maneuver. Not sure how effective that would be, given skin-on-skin contact would likely be required unless they are making HVP's with explosive heads now.
Navies do train with supersonic UAV's that attack ships to test systems. But getting close enough or having the correct course to have a CIWS engage doesn't strike me as the safest thing. There was an Israeli ship recently hit with a missile but that was a civilian ship.
If I remember correctly there was some news years ago about the USN acquiring some Moskits for testing purposes.
Not including the Falklands,
This is a very nuanced piece but it is a useful insight into how weapon and system integration is essential in defeating such targets. A point to note, the CEAFAR system used in this test was not the definitive version
www.janes.com
Remarkable development.Hanwa and LIG NEX 1 are designing and building competing CIWS built around the GAU-8 30mm gatling gun for the ROKN. Both will have an AESA radar and an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS).
MADEX 2021: LIG Nex1, Hanwha Systems showcase competing designs for RoKN's CIWS-II programme
South Korean companies LIG Nex1 and Hanwha Systems have showcased models of the close-in weapon systems (CIWSs) each of them is proposing to meet the Republic of Korea...
These will be interesting and if they come to fruition with offer a viable alternative to what's available now.
I would disagree that there are many disadvantages to a GAU-8 30MM gun based CIWS, especially this system. Phalanx yes, but not this. It's reloadable at sea, what missile based system can claim that? Once you've shot your load that's it.
, but remarkeble never the less.