Modern CIWS systems

[kato]

Impressive clip. It's not clear how long the laser took to disable the target.

However, the clip reveals that they're still using a long-duration laser shining instead of a high-powered short-pulse concept (the power in kW doesn't say anything about that - it's the energy that's decisive).
In the clip it's rather clear that the laser takes a while to melt through the outer hull of the UAV, creating a hole through which ignited fuel then escapes; this is congruent with the UAV keeping up flight, then losing stability and finally going down. With a short-pulse system, we'd instead see a small explosion ("phase explosion") in the impact area before that flame erupts.

Just for comparison, a Phalanx at intercept range imparts about a hundred times as much energy on the target as this laser over the same period in time. Then again a burst over this much time would be overkill from a Phalanx anyway

 

[StevoJH]

Well....1 watt is 1 joule per second.

so that laser is 32kJ/sec.

Who knows how much of the energy is lost in the atmosphere by the time it reaches the target thought.

And as I already stated, 32kW is hardly a massively powerful laser anyway.

 

[rip]

Well....1 watt is 1 joule per second.

so that laser is 32kJ/sec.

Who knows how much of the energy is lost in the atmosphere by the time it reaches the target thought.

And as I already stated, 32kW is hardly a massively powerful laser anyway.

It seems that you guys are missing the most important feature of the Phalanx CIWS system. That is, it uses a close loop fire control system with two radars. One radar to track the target and one radar to track the bullets going to the target. Not an open loop system that all the others use that only track the target and not the miss distance. If it can track the target it will ever miss. The fire control system and mount can be used with many weapons not just a gun. They can use it to shoot down multiple mortar shells and rockets in land applications. As far as the laser application that is coming for the CIWS function, they are deploying a land based version right now.
They are not testing the laser destruct potential in the video but the tracking and propagation effects at sea level under various weather conditions. Also, they want to be able to use the system also on small craft in ether a lethal and non-lethal mode.

 

[kato]

Not an open loop system that all the others use that only track the target and not the miss distance.

Tracking the line of fire is pretty much standard. Goalkeeper, Kashtan and Palma do it too, for example. Not necessarily by radar, some - especially Kashtan - may use an optronic channel instead (which is far more reliable in a high-intensity ECM environment).

They are not testing the laser destruct potential in the video but the tracking and propagation effects at sea level under various weather conditions.

You don't need to actually shoot something for that though; at least not a target UAV that costs money.

 

[IronsightSniper]

So, 1 Moskit fired at a single U.S. Arleigh Burke(which for some reason only has it's Phalanx CIWS systems active), who'd win?

I found this infographic from a Raytheon brochure regarding the Phalanx:

[ame]http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i69/LordJacky/Phalanxperformance.jpg[/ame]

A couple things to notice. The first is that the Phalanx in question is engaging a MQM-8G Vandal drone which is a variant of the RIM-8 Talos. Next, the drone was about 17,500 ft(5,300 m) in altitude, coming down at an angle of 30 degrees which gave it a velocity of about Mach 2.4 or 815 meters per second. Next, the drone was engaged(detected) at about 33,000 ft(10 km), the Phalanx opened fire at about 11,000 ft(3.3 km) and the target was destroyed at about 4,700 ft(900 meters). From the open firing distance to the destruction distance, it was about 6,300ft(1.9 km). Given that the drone was traveling at Mach 2.4, that makes the the time from firing to destruction out to about 2.3 seconds. In that 2.3 second span, 115-172 rounds could of been expended at the vandal.

To be quite honest with you, given that altitude and the *not so maneuvering* drone that was used in that test, I don't see how a Moskit could be defeated by a Phalanx. Of course, this is unless Moskits are rather killed by Missile CIWSs or I'm missing some facts. If someone knows a bit more on this subject, please provide.

 

[chkyr6]

I agree, I would be much more impressed if it were a powerful quick burst. Its nice if you have all day to follow the target but seems unimpressive for defense....I dont know all the other techincal stuff so its all from what I see

 

[chkyr6]

and I love the tag on the video, ..."SECRET testing off the coast of ...." and some sailor has their cell phone out grabbing video and uploading it to youtube! lol

 

[B1RDY]

Has no one considered the bofors 40mm mk 3? it's radar guided, has a high rate of fire and changable amuntion to suit specific purposes. coupled with a RAM system it should increase engagement range instead of relying on the small radar guided guns (such as the phalanx) which are becoming obsolete due to faster and improved missiles.

 

[1805]

Has no one considered the bofors 40mm mk 3? it's radar guided, has a high rate of fire and changable amuntion to suit specific purposes. coupled with a RAM system it should increase engagement range instead of relying on the small radar guided guns (such as the phalanx) which are becoming obsolete due to faster and improved missiles.

Is the 57mm on the DDG1000 planned as a replacement for the Phalanx or in addition? Does anyone know if the USN ever considered upgrading Phalanx with 30mm?

 

[kato]

Has no one considered the bofors 40mm mk 3? it's radar guided, has a high rate of fire and changable amuntion to suit specific purposes.

The Bofors 40mm Mk3 fires at 330 rpm, which is utterly useless for this purpose. Italy has a CIWS in the same caliber, Dardo aka Breda Twin Fast Forty. The older version using twin 330 rpm guns (660 rpm total) had a verified intercept chance of 30% versus subsonic missiles. The newer version of the mount firing at a combined 900 rpm is slightly more useful.

As for the 57mm i think i remember seeing intercept numbers for the Mk110 somewhere, but can't find them right now... i do remember not being particularly impressed.

Does anyone know if the USN ever considered upgrading Phalanx with 30mm?

Whatever would they do that for? And exactly what 30mm gun would that use that even remotely fits into R2D2? ASP-30?

 

[1805]

The Bofors 40mm Mk3 fires at 330 rpm, which is utterly useless for this purpose. Italy has a CIWS in the same caliber, Dardo aka Breda Twin Fast Forty. The older version using twin 330 rpm guns (660 rpm total) had a verified intercept chance of 30% versus subsonic missiles. The newer version of the mount firing at a combined 900 rpm is slightly more useful.

As for the 57mm i think i remember seeing intercept numbers for the Mk110 somewhere, but can't find them right now... i do remember not being particularly impressed.


Whatever would they do that for? And exactly what 30mm gun would that use that even remotely fits into R2D2? ASP-30?

Either GAU-8/A Avenger 30 or a new weapon, how big would this type of weapon go 40mm? There is the 35mm revolver canon, slightly different concept.

And why...well increase stopping power...proximity fuses??

Personally I favour 57/76mm & missiles

 

[rossfrb_1]

Either GAU-8/A Avenger 30 or a new weapon, how big would this type of weapon go 40mm? There is the 35mm revolver canon, slightly different concept.

Why develop another GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm system when Goalkeeper already exists. The yanks don't seem to be interested in that as they are starting to use the Millenium gun for CIWS role?

How conceptually different are they?
One is multi-barrell 30mm firing proximity fused
The other a single barrel 35mm firing time fused ammo.
I view the latter as an evolution of the former.

And why...well increase stopping power...proximity fuses??

30mm has greater stopping power than 35mm?
Are you trying to make a point between time and proximity fused?

Sorry I think I'm missing something here.

cheers
rb

 

[kato]

Either GAU-8/A Avenger 30 or a new weapon

There's a reason why Goalkeeper weighs more than a complete 76mm turret.

 

[1805]

Why develop another GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm system when Goalkeeper already exists. The yanks don't seem to be interested in that as they are starting to use the Millenium gun for CIWS role?

How conceptually different are they?
One is multi-barrell 30mm firing proximity fused
The other a single barrel 35mm firing time fused ammo.
I view the latter as an evolution of the former.



30mm has greater stopping power than 35mm?
Are you trying to make a point between time and proximity fused?

Sorry I think I'm missing something here.

cheers
rb

Sorry I probably wasn't clear, I was not comparing the stopping power of a 30 v 35mm (although I must admit I was not aware the millenium gun was fused, which is interesting) I was comparing with the 20mm Phalanx in relation to the posts above which indicated a lack of confidence in stopping power.

The slight difference concept was not the role/ammunition was in mechanisim, i.e revolving chamber v gatlin. Both established concepts, I think one has a high rate if fire, one gets their faster?

 

[1805]

There's a reason why Goalkeeper weighs more than a complete 76mm turret.

I wondered also if it is the flexibility of the Phalanx you cna just bolt it on? But agree weight would be an issue, still worth having if it works, but then if the USN just regards as an outside chance and really is focusing on RAM you can understand why they can't see the value in 30mm?

 

[kato]

The slight difference concept was not the role/ammunition was in mechanisim, i.e revolving chamber v gatlin. Both established concepts, I think one has a high rate if fire, one gets their faster?

All three guns - Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Millenium - use different approaches to combatting their target.

Phalanx essentially throws a stream of either 60 or 100 penetrator slugs (15mm DU AP, sabotted) at the target in about 1.2 seconds, Millenium places typically 18 small penetrator clouds in its path (total ~2700 55-grain tungsten AP bullets per burst) within 1.0 seconds.

Goalkeeper typically fires about 15 penetrator slugs (basically the same 15mm long-rod penetrators as Phalanx, in DU or tungsten) at the target in only 0.2 second long bursts, unlike Phalanx with automatic kill assessment after each such burst. This is a different operation from Phalanx in so far as it enables really combatting multiple targets.

if the USN just regards as an outside chance and really is focusing on RAM you can understand why they can't see the value in 30mm?

The USN tested Goalkeeper in 1990 as a possible successor to Phalanx (CIWS-2000 tender). As Goalkeeper did not show sufficiently higher performance than Phalanx in these tests the whole CIWS-2000 program was cancelled in favour of upgrading Phalanx.
This coincided with Philips selling Signaal to Thomson-CSF btw, which adds a political angle.

 

[B1RDY]

It was my mistake, i got the calibre wrong, I was thinking of the 57mm bofors mk3 not the 40mm. I still think the 57mm with its airburst ammunition could be capable of missile defence outside of CIWS range of course.

I have just seen videos of the Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm, unlike the Phalanx and Goalkeeper it isn't a multi-barrelled weapon. Is it as effective for CIWS as the other two? Also is the 30mm Goalkeeper a better system than the Phalanx? And i once saw a russian CIWS platform with two chain guns on one mount. Why has no one else copied this idea?

 

[1805]

It was my mistake, i got the calibre wrong, I was thinking of the 57mm bofors mk3 not the 40mm. I still think the 57mm with its airburst ammunition could be capable of missile defence outside of CIWS range of course.

I have just seen videos of the Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm, unlike the Phalanx and Goalkeeper it isn't a multi-barrelled weapon. Is it as effective for CIWS as the other two? Also is the 30mm Goalkeeper a better system than the Phalanx? And i once saw a russian CIWS platform with two chain guns on one mount. Why has no one else copied this idea?

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions in this space, which we can only speculate on. As I understand it the 35mm Millennium gun is based on the chamber revolving (same as the old ADEN cannon), so it does achieve a high rate of fire and because the heavy barrels are not spinning in theory its acceleration is faster, which is more important as they are only firing short bursts.

I agree the Kashtan CIWS seems a much more comprehensive solution with 2 x 30mm & missiles. I suspect the USN has little faith in these weapons and just regards them as last ditch, better than nothing, and wants to focus on heavier missile based solutions. In this role, the ability to be light and “bolt on” without the need for complex radar fits would be key.

The move to 57mm calibre is interesting, the Italians use 76mm in the same role; both have much greater hitting power, but they are not light or bolt on. The question is are they really effective in this role, do they add anything over or in conjunction with missiles?

So is Phalanx and its peers worth the money??

 

[STURM]

II agree the Kashtan CIWS seems a much more comprehensive solution with 2 x 30mm & missiles.

During demonstration trials performed in the Baltic, the Indian Navy found that Kashtan did not perform as advertised, not being able to hit targets flying under a certain altitude.

 

[1805]

During demonstration trials performed in the Baltic, the Indian Navy found that Kashtan did not perform as advertised, not being able to hit targets flying under a certain altitude.

Interesting, when you add this to the earlier posts on Phalanx trials, it makes you wonder if any of these gun based systems would be able to detect a fast low incoming missile in time, to put a sufficient number of rounds in it to stop it.

But would the heavier 76/57mm weapons perform any better. Does anyone have any knowledge of trials with these weapons?