Modern CIWS systems

[Todjaeger]

This is very true! Modern weapons are very good with regards to superstructure but I've never seen anything do as much damage to a ship than a torpedo! Do modern destroyers even carry torpedo's these days. If this is the case what guidance system do they have, and in response what countermeasures do ships have to combat torpedo's?

With the information provided I think that if a missile is not destroyed by ships main guns or RAM's (which I believe to be highly unlikely), that the CIWS range of weapons would be quite capable of destroying these targets. All in all I think ships these days are quite capable of a multitude of different tasks.

However I still feel that in the event of a war which had two modern vessels fighting each other (this what I've seen based on training videos), that the crew would not have the capability to match the warship in a fight. For example non of the captains are kept on a ship for very long and the crew are always changed about, would they know to saturate a target with both shells from the main weapon and anti-ship missiles aswell as any other general missile to saturate the enemy?? The speed at which modern vessels crews operate has to be greatly improved to match the speed of modern weapons! But from what I've seen it would appear that all the red tape that goes with simply shooting at someone my make the job ocf the captain and crew quite difficult!!

Most frigates and destroyers do mount torpedoes, but these are lightweight torpedoes designed for ASW.

Also, given the currently 'common' munitions loadout for a ship's main cannon, SAM and AShM warshots would have already been taken prior to two frigates/destroyers being able to close to within cannon range.

Lastly, for most navies, an engagement would not just be two vessels coming into contact with each other and 'slugging it out'. There are other vessels and assets which provide support which should normally become involved prior to ships being able to close to gun range.

-Cheers

 

[STURM]

Most frigates and destroyers do mount torpedoes, but these are lightweight torpedoes designed for ASW. -Cheers

Would you agree that shipborne torps are essentially last ditch weapons as to come within firing range, the ship would also be in range of a subs torps as well. If I'm not mistaken, certain Swedish ships had torps that could also be used for the anti-surface/ship role.

I've asked this question before in another thread more than a year ago so apologies for repeating myself - are we all in agreement that for the anti-air role, 76mm and 57mm guns, on account of having a higher rate of fire, are more useful than 114mm and 127mm guns?

 

[Todjaeger]

Would you agree that shipborne torps are essentially last ditch weapons as to come within firing range, the ship would also be in range of a subs torps as well. If I'm not mistaken, certain Swedish ships had torps that could also be used for the anti-surface/ship role.

Going a little OT: Not exactly. One must remember that frigates and destroyers are escort vessels. Basically screening ships in place to defend high value targets, be they capital ships, amphibs or a merchant/cargo convoy. As such, they should position themselves to be between where any subs would be located, and the actual target of the sub. Now, in such ASW screens, there would usually be one or more depth bomb and/or LWT-equipped ASW helicopter operating from the escort ship(s). Any shipmounted ASW weaponry would be in support of the helicopters, either to engage contacts after the helicopter has expended its carried munitions, or if the sub contact managed to slip past the screening helicopters. To this end, the USN is looking at a new version of SUBROC, utilizing the Mk54 LWT. This would be carried in VLS and extend the 'reach' the escort vessel, as well as the weaponry that a ASW can bring to bear against a contact. Now, to directly answer the the question, yes, most heavyweight sub-launched torpedoes have longer range than the LWT which means that a sub could get into a firing position outside of the range of a shipmounted LWT, but that would still most likely not give the sub a good firing solution on the high value target.

And yes, some Swedish and other patrolboats or smallcraft still carry heavyweight torpedoes.

I've asked this question before in another thread more than a year ago so apologies for repeating myself - are we all in agreement that for the anti-air role, 76mm and 57mm guns, on account of having a higher rate of fire, are more useful than 114mm and 127mm guns?

From my perspective, not quite. A 76mm/62 cal. Super Rapid (ROF ~120rds/min) with some of the DAVIDE guided/fused munitions would likely prove superior to even an Italian rapid fire 127mm (~40 rds/min). A 57mm IMO would not. While they are frequently listed with a ~200rds/min ROF, that is inaccurately high. Somewhere else here on DT, a few of us have gone over the numbers, but the published ROF is calculated by multiplying how many rounds the 57mm gun can fire in 15 seconds, and then multiplying that out... In reality, a 57mm has a max per minute rate of fire comparable to the published figure for a 76mm Super Rapid. After about 40 seconds of fire, a 57mm needs to have all the ready ammunition reloaded manually from the magazine.

Between that limitation, as well as the considerably smaller size of a 57mm round and therefore limits to the amount of submunitions, etc, as well as the shorter range, IMO a rapid 127mm cannon with guided munitions would out perform a 57mm in an AA role.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

While they are frequently listed with a ~200rds/min ROF, that is inaccurately high. Somewhere else here on DT, a few of us have gone over the numbers, but the published ROF is calculated by multiplying how many rounds the 57mm gun can fire in 15 seconds, and then multiplying that out...

To be fair the 120 rpm of the 76mm OTO (or the tested max 139 rpm) is a rather academical figure too. In reality you'll usually be using 4-round bursts (load drum capacity) with perhaps a 40- or 60-rpm effective cyclic rate.

After about 40 seconds of fire, a 57mm needs to have all the ready ammunition reloaded manually from the magazine.

The same is true for the 76mm OTO SR. 80 rounds. 40 seconds.

And there's rumours a 76mm OTO SR will not survive repeated hot loading and firing over several minutes btw.

 

[AegisFC]

However I still feel that in the event of a war which had two modern vessels fighting each other (this what I've seen based on training videos), that the crew would not have the capability to match the warship in a fight. For example non of the captains are kept on a ship for very long and the crew are always changed about, would they know to saturate a target with both shells from the main weapon and anti-ship missiles aswell as any other general missile to saturate the enemy?? The speed at which modern vessels crews operate has to be greatly improved to match the speed of modern weapons! But from what I've seen it would appear that all the red tape that goes with simply shooting at someone my make the job ocf the captain and crew quite difficult!!

Do you realize that TAO's, CO's, other senior officers, operators and techs go through extensive schooling and team trainers before reporting to the command at places like Dahlgren and Wallops Island? That there is extensive docterine and documentation on what munitions to use under a given situation at certian ranges?
No professional navy throws an untrained crew on a ship and hopes for the best and the sea/shore rotation is in place for a reason, how about you do some research before spouting your mouth on a subject you have no knowlege of.

 

[Todjaeger]

To be fair the 120 rpm of the 76mm OTO (or the tested max 139 rpm) is a rather academical figure too. In reality you'll usually be using 4-round bursts (load drum capacity) with perhaps a 40- or 60-rpm effective cyclic rate.


The same is true for the 76mm OTO SR. 80 rounds. 40 seconds.

And there's rumours a 76mm OTO SR will not survive repeated hot loading and firing over several minutes btw.

I suspected the 120 rds/min ROF was also on the high side. Hence why I mentioned a 'published' figured. IMO the various navies should require that the manufacturer's factsheets accurately/truthfully report the ROF, with one number given for perhaps 15 seconds of fire, the number of rounds which can actually be fired in 1 minute, as well as the sustained/sustainable ROF.

-Cheers

 

[B1RDY]

Do you realize that TAO's, CO's, other senior officers, operators and techs go through extensive schooling and team trainers before reporting to the command at places like Dahlgren and Wallops Island? That there is extensive docterine and documentation on what munitions to use under a given situation at certian ranges?
No professional navy throws an untrained crew on a ship and hopes for the best and the sea/shore rotation is in place for a reason, how about you do some research before spouting your mouth on a subject you have no knowlege of.

So can you tell me why when of the coast of Somalia RN vessels have to contact the top brass in London for permission to engage known hostile targets?? Another example of how yet more red tape gets in the way of efficientcy in navies! Just as the Royal Navy went from an efficient fighting force to a smart and clean crazed navy in the late 1900's, now navies and almost all other forms of military life are restricted from doing their job by this rules of engagement bull!!!

 

[Todjaeger]

So can you tell me why when of the coast of Somalia RN vessels have to contact the top brass in London for permission to engage known hostile targets?? Another example of how yet more red tape gets in the way of efficientcy in navies! Just as the Royal Navy went from an efficient fighting force to a smart and clean crazed navy in the late 1900's, now navies and almost all other forms of military life are restricted from doing their job by this rules of engagement bull!!!

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are quite different from asserting that inexperienced and untrained crews are aboard ship and deployed.

As for why Rules of Engagement exist, how about you do a search and found out just what they are? Once you know what they are, the reasons why they exist should be self-explanatory. The exact reason(s) for individual/specific ROE's might not be immediately apparent, but the overall idea should be pretty clear.

-Cheers

 

[B1RDY]

Rules of Engagement (ROE) are quite different from asserting that inexperienced and untrained crews are aboard ship and deployed.

As for why Rules of Engagement exist, how about you do a search and found out just what they are? Once you know what they are, the reasons why they exist should be self-explanatory. The exact reason(s) for individual/specific ROE's might not be immediately apparent, but the overall idea should be pretty clear.

-Cheers

There is good reason for ROE to be there! It prevents accidents and innocent people being killed for no reason! However in certain circumstances it only gets in the way of efficiency and in the way of the military doing it's job! War and politics cannot coincide!

And I'm not saying that training of naval personell is poor or not up to scratch! But no matter how well someone passes through the training course, good leadership comes through experience, skill, the ability to think on your feet and mostly relies on bending the rules of the 'big book'! What I'm mainly saying is in almost all situations experience is what can be relied on to deal with situations! And because of red tape officers and crew don't have the ability to gain experience!

 

[Palnatoke]

So can you tell me why when of the coast of Somalia RN vessels have to contact the top brass in London for permission to engage known hostile targets?? Another example of how yet more red tape gets in the way of efficientcy in navies! Just as the Royal Navy went from an efficient fighting force to a smart and clean crazed navy in the late 1900's, now navies and almost all other forms of military life are restricted from doing their job by this rules of engagement bull!!!

I think that beside and above "rules of engagement" shooting hapless civilians at sea - no matter their alledged criminal intent - is covered by the penal law of most civilized nations as manslaughter, if not murder.

 

[AegisFC]

War and politics cannot coincide!

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post but war IS politics by different means.

 

[riksavage]

To be fair the 120 rpm of the 76mm OTO (or the tested max 139 rpm) is a rather academical figure too. In reality you'll usually be using 4-round bursts (load drum capacity) with perhaps a 40- or 60-rpm effective cyclic rate.


The same is true for the 76mm OTO SR. 80 rounds. 40 seconds.

And there's rumours a 76mm OTO SR will not survive repeated hot loading and firing over several minutes btw.

Back on topic.

Are larger calibre weapons with a secondary CIWS role (57mm/76mm) fully automated in a similar way to Phalanx or do they require someone to push a button/foot-plate to open fire? I'm curious as to whether any human interface is required to prevent a possible blue-on-blue in the event a missile passes between two friendly's on its way to hit a third. I know of one example during GWI where a US vessel sprayed the stern of a sister ship with Phalanx rounds whilst attempting to engage a silkworm (later shotdown by SeaDart). Being hit by a concentrated burst of either 57 or 76mm would ruin anyones day.

 

[STURM]

Back on topic.

Are larger calibre weapons with a secondary CIWS role (57mm/76mm) fully automated in a similar way to Phalanx or do they require someone to push a button/foot-plate to open fire?

Wasn't there a 'blue on blue' back in the 1990's involving a Turkish naval vessel being hit by a USN missile during an exercise?

 

[AegisFC]

Wasn't there a 'blue on blue' back in the 1990's involving a Turkish naval vessel being hit by a USN missile during an exercise?

Yes, involved a Sea Sparrow accidently being launched into the bridge of a Turkish destroyer.
This is probably the best UNCLASS version of events as you are likely to get.
TCG Muavenet (DM 357) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[donuteater]

I wish the royal australian navys lhds would have a good armament. All we have is a retarded mix of 4 25mm guns and some .50 cal guns. Were are the Phalanxes and Sea Sparrows and RAM's?

 

[Todjaeger]

I wish the royal australian navys lhds would have a good armament. All we have is a retarded mix of 4 25mm guns and some .50 cal guns. Were are the Phalanxes and Sea Sparrows and RAM's?

Please pay actual attention to what the RAN fitout is. The seachicken (aka Sea Sparrow) is either out of service, or will be out of service once the Anzac-class FFH ASMD upgrade programme is completed, having been replaced with the ESSM.

As for the Canberra-class LHD, it has a permanent armament of Typhoon-mounted 25 mm Bushmaster cannon (same gun as the ASLAV...), and has mountings so that Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS can be fitted as needed. The RAN also has a pool of Phalanx so that units can be added on or removed as required by maintenance and operational needs. This was the procedure the RAN followed with the LPA's.

While I forget how long it takes to fit a Phalanx onto a mounting, IIRC it ranges some from a few hours to a day or so.

-Cheers

 

[Dodger67]

An LHD has no business paddling around in hostile water without an escort of at least a frigate.
The LHD's function is to deliver troop across the beach, not getting into brawls with enemy ships.

 

[rossfrb_1]

An LHD has no business paddling around in hostile water without an escort of at least a frigate.
The LHD's function is to deliver troop across the beach, not getting into brawls with enemy ships.

I don't know for sure but I would presume that the USN would deploy its LHDs with frigate/destroyer support.
However looking at the US WASP class, they have RAM, sea sparrow and 3 phalanx (albeit for a ship ~1.5X the size).
Does the USN with all their supporting assets have a different philosophy than the RAN?
I would be curious to know what RAN think on this topic would be.
My suspicion is that it's government penny pinching. They probably think an army RBS-70 team up on the bow with a single launcher would do the job.
It's been done before!

Personally I'd like to see RAM in some form - even the 11 cell seaRAM an option for RAN LHDs. Like Phalanx, there could be a pool. They're supposed to bolt on the same mounts as Phalanx.

cheers
rb

 

[TopGuns]

Back on topic.

Are larger calibre weapons with a secondary CIWS role (57mm/76mm) fully automated in a similar way to Phalanx or do they require someone to push a button/foot-plate to open fire?

No. Something needs to trigger the firing, yes (unless it has its own internal target processing/logic, like the Phalanx!), but most modern CCS systems have semi to fully automated combat systems that can determine track identifcation (Friend or Foe), correlate multiple sensor information, determine threat assesment, assign and prioritize Fire control/weapon systems and assign/engage weapons, all automatically (if enabled!).....Obviously tons of safetys and fail safes exist to prevent these functions from being turned on "by accident".....

This is more of a CCS or Combat management system CMS function than the weapon though......

 

[Lobos82]

LaWS System

Has anybody seen the video of the new LaWS (Laser Weapon System) on Youtube yet? I currently work on laser engraving systems, and it seems like this weapon would be very hard to keep in good condition at sea. I'm not sure about the type of optics or lenses this system uses, but if it's anything like the optics engravers use, tiny particles can easily degrade the power of the exiting beam. I was in the Navy and it is pretty much impossible to keep anything topside clean, so I'm curious how they plan on keeping this laser performing. If anybody has a site with good info on this system I'd like to see it. For now I guess I'll search around!