Modern CIWS systems
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
Pendekar,
I have no doubt that 3P is useful against some kind of missiles. The question really is whether it's effective against supersonic ones.
On another matter, throughout the 1990's BAe Systems [prior to that British Aerospace] use to market Seawolf as being able to intercept a 4.5 inch shell. No one else ever made a similar claim for their products; begs the question of whether this capability was unique to Seawolf :] ? Jernas is marketed as being able to counter low flying cruise missiles but surely this is a capability also available from Jernas's competitors? When it comes to reading OEM brochures I've long learnt to read between the lines; to what's not mention as opposed to what is.
I have no doubt that 3P is useful against some kind of missiles. The question really is whether it's effective against supersonic ones.
On another matter, throughout the 1990's BAe Systems [prior to that British Aerospace] use to market Seawolf as being able to intercept a 4.5 inch shell. No one else ever made a similar claim for their products; begs the question of whether this capability was unique to Seawolf :] ? Jernas is marketed as being able to counter low flying cruise missiles but surely this is a capability also available from Jernas's competitors? When it comes to reading OEM brochures I've long learnt to read between the lines; to what's not mention as opposed to what is.
Many of the Italian Navy ships use 72/64 or 128/64 cannons built by OTO MELARA in version Super Rapido (Super rapid) as CIWS, in the newest ships and also older capital ship (like the destroyers class Orizzonte and the Cavour class Carrier) will be able in the close future to use also guided projectiles.
I find really interesting how the Italians use cannons instead of a system like the Phalanx.
I found this video really in depth on the new systems for the new Italian ships (like the LHD Trieste) and I saw that every ship has at least 2 of such cannons.
Mod edit: Media link deleted as this is the third time you have linked to this vide in the last six hours. Such repeated behavior is suspect, as it seems like attempts to spam the forum with a YouTube video.
-Preceptor
Edit: seeing the mod edit (sorry for the spamm) i’ll post here the detail, the new LHD for example uses 3 of such guns, one in the front and one for each sides on the back.
The Cavour Carrier has the same arrangement.
Also the FREMMs has 2 more of such cannons compared to the French that has only one.
All of the 10 PPAs that has been already financed have will have two of these guns one on the front and one on the back over the hangar.
Even the new supply ship will be armed for self defence with one of this guns.
It seems that the Italians have a lot o confidence in such a gun, but i’m Afraid that it won’t be as good as a phalanx system type defence
I find really interesting how the Italians use cannons instead of a system like the Phalanx.
I found this video really in depth on the new systems for the new Italian ships (like the LHD Trieste) and I saw that every ship has at least 2 of such cannons.
Mod edit: Media link deleted as this is the third time you have linked to this vide in the last six hours. Such repeated behavior is suspect, as it seems like attempts to spam the forum with a YouTube video.
-Preceptor
Edit: seeing the mod edit (sorry for the spamm) i’ll post here the detail, the new LHD for example uses 3 of such guns, one in the front and one for each sides on the back.
The Cavour Carrier has the same arrangement.
Also the FREMMs has 2 more of such cannons compared to the French that has only one.
All of the 10 PPAs that has been already financed have will have two of these guns one on the front and one on the back over the hangar.
Even the new supply ship will be armed for self defence with one of this guns.
It seems that the Italians have a lot o confidence in such a gun, but i’m Afraid that it won’t be as good as a phalanx system type defence
Last edited:
It depends on doctrine or personal preference. The Germans rely more on RAM rather a gun based CIWS for last ditch defence.
Granted Phalanx has a higher ROF [to be expected] but I'm not really sure whether we can say with any certainty that Super Rapid [when firing ''smart'' ammo] is inferior to Phalanx when operating against missiles; especially supersonic ones.
The Super Rapido with Vulcano intelligent ammunition could be better or worst, we won’t be sure till it will be proven with serious supersonic targets...
The problem is that right now none of the Italian ships armed with the Super Rapido is still armed with the Vulcano ammunition
Very true but we can say the same about Phalanx. Simulations or tests aside; until it actually shoots down an incoming supersonic ASM in a conflict we won't know how truly effective it is.
Well for the Phalanx we have some data from a similar versione that is the Goalkeeper CIWS that was fitted onboard the HMS Invincible during the Falkland war
HMS Invincible was fitted with Phalanx not Goalkeeper. HMS Ark Royal was fitted with Goalkeeper. In both cases this installation occurred after the Falklands War (noting Ark Royal was incomplete at that time). The image below is the Invincible returning from the Falklands with no Phalanx fitted
HMS Invincible returns home following the Falklands War, 1982
Last edited:
Ohhh wow, i dodn’t Knew that, thank you a lotHMS Invincible was fitted with Phalanx not Goalkeeper. HMS Ark Royal was fitted with Goalkeeper. In both case this installation occurred after the Falklands War (noting Ark Royal was incomplete at that time). The image below is the Invincible returning from the Falklands with no Phalanx fitted
HMS Invincible returns home following the Falklands War, 1982
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Great picture of Invincible's homecoming in 1982.
Really nice video, I’ve never saw the guided ammunition in slow motion
I upload an image made by a friend of mine for his youtube channel video about the Carrier Cavour (compared to the Admiral Kuznetsov and the Juan Carlos I).
The black dots are the 72/64 cannons, the red are the KBA 25/80 anti aircrafts guns, the yellows are the VLS for Aster 15/30 and the blues are SCLAR-H (i know that the SCLAR-H are chafs and decoys launcher, but can also launch explosives rockets at close range in desperate time)
The new italian LHD shold havethe same defensive armaments.
(If you want to take a look at the video here it is )
( if it is a problem I modify this post immediately)
The black dots are the 72/64 cannons, the red are the KBA 25/80 anti aircrafts guns, the yellows are the VLS for Aster 15/30 and the blues are SCLAR-H (i know that the SCLAR-H are chafs and decoys launcher, but can also launch explosives rockets at close range in desperate time)
The new italian LHD shold havethe same defensive armaments.
(If you want to take a look at the video here it is )
( if it is a problem I modify this post immediately)
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Here at US clears weapon sales for Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Croatia, Canada, Brazil and South Korea
we can see that two MK 15 MOD 25 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System Block 1B Baseline 2 systems costs around $39 million. This package would come along with training and 4,000 rounds.
The CIWS is planned for South-Korea, but it is unclear for which vessels.
we can see that two MK 15 MOD 25 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System Block 1B Baseline 2 systems costs around $39 million. This package would come along with training and 4,000 rounds.
The CIWS is planned for South-Korea, but it is unclear for which vessels.
It says that the Phalanx systems are for the first KDX-III Batch 2 ship. US$19.5 million per system seems a lot or money for a R2D2.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Sorry, i read the article just until "4000 rounds".
Thanks for telling me..
I think it was more impressive in the 1970s. It was done during Seawolf trials, I think by 1977 at the latest.
JohnWolf
Member
Something in another thread made me think of this-
Has anyone every conducted a good study on the the increased efficacy of multiple BPMDS on the same ship?
I bring this up because having just a couple on each ship, and often just one to cover a certain facing, never seemed sufficient to me. I suppose that is because the first thing i would do is fire multiple missiles to overwhelm just a limited defense.
Do multiple BPMDS increase each other's effectiveness to a greater degree than simple addition would suggest? (meaning; is the increase something like going from 20% to 55% when two are working together?)
I think we can skip the argument about deck-space. They don't take up much, they just need those nice little places that have the best view, to what it really comes down to is a matter of priorities.
Has anyone every conducted a good study on the the increased efficacy of multiple BPMDS on the same ship?
I bring this up because having just a couple on each ship, and often just one to cover a certain facing, never seemed sufficient to me. I suppose that is because the first thing i would do is fire multiple missiles to overwhelm just a limited defense.
Do multiple BPMDS increase each other's effectiveness to a greater degree than simple addition would suggest? (meaning; is the increase something like going from 20% to 55% when two are working together?)
I think we can skip the argument about deck-space. They don't take up much, they just need those nice little places that have the best view, to what it really comes down to is a matter of priorities.
Firstly - I'm an old hand at T, F & FLA's, as it's been part of my day job for the last 25 years, but I had to go n look up what BPMDS was....
Google gave LOTS of answers including "Business Process Modelling, Development and Support", so you can tell it took me a bit of time to get to "Basic Point Missile Defence System (predecessor to NATO Sea Sparrow)"
RIM-162 ESSM - Wikipedia
So....To get back on track - We need to clarify some things...
Point Defence - the last 40 years have taught many lessons to the naval world, due to the variety of wars / skirmishes & one-off incidents that have happened across the globe. Most of this relates to Point Defence being a 'Hail Mary' / last line of defence when all other avenues have failed, with an inbound missile. The technology used has been predominately 'The wall of lead' approach (Phalanx / Goalkeeper / Chinese Type 730 CIWS / Russian AK-630) These all rely on putting large volumes of 20 or 30mm rounds into the path of an incoming missile.
Alternates such as the original Sea Sparrow or possibly Sea Wolf Missiles (used by the UK Royal Navy & numerous others), that utilised deck mounted launchers have been systematically removed / cancelled out by other upgrades in technology, or even the age of the technology itself. The units fitted to 'older hulls' in the 1980's were effectively 'stop-gaps' / band-aids to help the ships do tasking that they weren't initially designed for / as a quick fix to give these ship protection when going into harms way.
From that perspective while there are many warships that have 'split' missile silo's, these magazine predominately carry missiles for self preservation / attack of enemy aircraft, with different missiles designed to attack ships / land targets. The CONOPS methodology has also matured, as enemies have changed, as have the types of attacks that a ship will possibly have to deal with. Even now that whole CONOPS is still being churned to deal with perceived threats from non-national entities, such as extreme groups & pirates.
Going back to BPDMS, based on the details in the wiki-link above, the Sea Sparrow is now effectively ESSM. The issue with this is that to incorporate the system to a ship, you firstly need a have half-decent radar system capable of 3D coverage out to around say 200 miles. Next, the older deck mounted launchers appear to be getting phased out & the optimal load-out is being contained within the Mk41 VLS Launcher set-up, in quad packed launchers. The cost effectiveness of redesigning an older hull to modify it & fit the 'newer' equipment, makes the whole process very cost prohibitive, as bucks spent today fixing older ships/equipment means fewer dollars tomorrow to design & build new vessels.
As for testing / efficacy of 'dual' launchers I don't believe any work will have been done. I'm not stating that in the course of training / live missile firings that it hasn't been attempted, I'm simply stating that if it has, the navies conducting the trials would very likely keep such knowledge to themselves.
The final throes on this comment have been touched on by yourself, in that what does a ship actually gain by firing multiple missiles from multiple launchers across a platform , at a limited target, other than wholly reducing the remaining missile count that may be needed for alternate targets / a second wave ?
There are lots if if's, but's & maybe's in that whole piece which could / would eventually go off on an argumentative tangent, so I believe that we should leave things there...
SA