Modern CIWS systems

[JohnWolf]

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

Thanks for the interesting answer.
I was mainly thinking in terms of Guns, and by missile defense I was thinking more of items like the RIM-116.

To be clear; I look at ships that have 1 or 2 CIWS or other systems per facing, and I wonder if they might not be over-worked in the moment or crisis that they were built to cope with.
They don't take up all that much space, so why are there not more being mounted?

 

[John Newman]

Something that is overlooked, and mostly forgotten, when it comes to ship missile defence is decoys.

Nulka - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And

Nulka

The Nulka active missile decoy is the most sophisticated soft-kill anti-ship missile defence system available for the protection of surface warships. It is currently deployed on over 150 surface warships of Australia, the United States and Canada.

www.baesystems.com

When it comes to decoys, Nulka, the Australian designed and developed decoy, would appear to be at the top of the decoy tree.

As of 2017, more than 150 RAN, RCN and USN ships are fitted with Nulka.

The RAN Hobart class DDGs for example, are equipped with ESSM, Phalanx and Nulka, that is three layers of defence.

The above provides the ship with a combination of hard and soft kill options.

 

[CB90]

Something that is overlooked, and mostly forgotten, when it comes to ship missile defence is decoys.

Nulka - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And

Nulka

The Nulka active missile decoy is the most sophisticated soft-kill anti-ship missile defence system available for the protection of surface warships. It is currently deployed on over 150 surface warships of Australia, the United States and Canada.

www.baesystems.com

When it comes to decoys, Nulka, the Australian designed and developed decoy, would appear to be at the top of the decoy tree.

As of 2017, more than 150 RAN, RCN and USN ships are fitted with Nulka.

The RAN Hobart class DDGs for example, are equipped with ESSM, Phalanx and Nulka, that is three layers of defence.

The above provides the ship with a combination of hard and soft kill options.

SM2 adds an outer layer as well. You’re really talking about at least about 3 cracks to hard kill before hit. Could be more depending on detection range and target speed.

 

[Boagrius]

Good points John & CB90. Additionally, USN vessels appear to feature the AN/SLQ-59 and AN/SLQ-32 in various iterations, presumably as some sort of EW/soft kill protection. As far as hard kill is concerned, I imagine SM-6 may offer an even more extended layer of protection, especially when paired with an airborne cueing radar w/ CEC.

 

[John Newman]

SM2 adds an outer layer as well. You’re really talking about at least about 3 cracks to hard kill before hit. Could be more depending on detection range and target speed.

Mate, yes you are correct, can also add SM-6 to the list of longer range hard kill options,

The reason I didn’t include SM-2/-6 to my post was that I was looking at the more closer in options for ship missile defence.

Cheers,

Edit:
Here's an animation of Nulka in action:

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the interesting answer.
I was mainly thinking in terms of Guns, and by missile defense I was thinking more of items like the RIM-116.

To be clear; I look at ships that have 1 or 2 CIWS or other systems per facing, and I wonder if they might not be over-worked in the moment or crisis that they were built to cope with.
They don't take up all that much space, so why are there not more being mounted?

They not might take up much space, but they still cannot be mounted 'just' anywhere. Take a Mk 15 Sea Phalanx 20mm CIWS which is non-deck penetrating as an example. Wherever it would be mounted needs to be a flat deck surface that has been sufficiently reinforced to take the weight of the mounting, and handle the recoil from firing. The mounting site also needs to be wired and plumbed so that power and cooling gets to the mounting, as well as connection to a controlling console in the ship's bridge and/or CIC. In addition, in order to provide a useful capability that flat deck spacing needs to be somewhere which could provide a CIWS a decent field of view, and not interfere with other ship systems or operations, or even get damaged by the same.

A good example would be the (bad) idea of mounting a gun CIWS right next to a VLS, where the CIWS gun barrel could at times be extended over VLS cells... or alternatively, the CIWS could get damaged/disabled by exhaust from a launching missile. What it really boils down to is that on many warships, there is a limited amount of real estate where things can be fitted and it then becomes a question of priorities. With that in mind, dedicating too much space to last-ditch defence systems instead of more generally useful/important primary systems typically is not done.

 

[John Newman]

The other factors are stability and excessive top weight issues.

You can’t just keep adding and adding systems without consequences to ship stability too.

 

[JohnWolf]

A good example would be the (bad) idea of mounting a gun CIWS right next to a VLS, ....

Holy crap! Nobody every actually did that, did they?!

RIght, I understand all that, good placement areas are always at a premium.

I suppose what set me off on this was a bit from that old Tom Clancy book; Red Storm Rising. There was a passage where multiple missiles were closing in on the stern of a carrier, and the CWIS went back and forth and then "petulently refused to fire at any of them".
And that has always stayed with me, it has a dreadful ring of truth to it where hi-tech systems are concerned.

 

[CB90]

Holy crap! Nobody every actually did that, did they?!

RIght, I understand all that, good placement areas are always at a premium.

I suppose what set me off on this was a bit from that old Tom Clancy book; Red Storm Rising. There was a passage where multiple missiles were closing in on the stern of a carrier, and the CWIS went back and forth and then "petulently refused to fire at any of them".
And that has always stayed with me, it has a dreadful ring of truth to it where hi-tech systems are concerned.

Well for starters that’s not what CIWS does now, though maybe it did when Clancy was doing his research in the 80’s.

And second, if that was what CIWS did when presented with multiple missiles, putting more mounts on wouldn’t solve that problem - you’d just have more mounts petulantly refusing to fire.

 

[Todjaeger]

Holy crap! Nobody every actually did that, did they?!

RIght, I understand all that, good placement areas are always at a premium.

I suppose what set me off on this was a bit from that old Tom Clancy book; Red Storm Rising. There was a passage where multiple missiles were closing in on the stern of a carrier, and the CWIS went back and forth and then "petulently refused to fire at any of them".
And that has always stayed with me, it has a dreadful ring of truth to it where hi-tech systems are concerned.

You would be talking about the part where a CVN was dealing with leakers and the Phalanx was in automatic mode and the fire control radar had two inbounds at the same range from the gun which would impact at the same time and the logic & programming for the automatic mode was insufficient for the situation. I do not know enough about how the automatic mode is programmed to know if that is a 'real' issue, but it could certainly be possible. Something many people forget is that computers are stupid, even dumber than most people. A computer will do exactly what it is programmed/told to do, which is not the same as what someone wants or thinks a computer should do. In the situation in that book, the fire control computer was programmed with a sequential response to engage missiles based upon their range going from closest to furthest. Unfortunately the programming did not include instructions on what to do if there was more than a single target at the same range.

Even if a vessel had multiple CIWS which could have been brought to bear, if the fire control/programming was not sufficient, the same result could happen. As a side note, with CIWS they can be centrally controlled, or operate on a remote/automatic control depending on the CIWS and vessel. If the ones used are operating on a remote or automatic control, without coordination from a central system like a CIC, then it could be possible for multiple CIWS to end up wastefully engaging the same target, while ignoring others. This is also assuming that the CIWS has not already suffered a mechanical malfunction and/or deleted the loaded ammunition. If memory serves, a Mk 15 can fire for ~42 seconds before it runs out of ammo.

 

[Systems Adict]

I was mainly thinking in terms of Guns, and by missile defense I was thinking more of items like the RIM-116.

To be clear; I look at ships that have 1 or 2 CIWS or other systems per facing, and I wonder if they might not be over-worked in the moment or crisis that they were built to cope with.
They don't take up all that much space, so why are there not more being mounted?

I appreciate that there are some additional answers / comments above that will follow the same vein as my response, but I want to address the aspects of SeaRAM specifically, so here goes.

(Space / foot print) / Power supplies / physical structure / support / overall costs.

These are x5 key factors that need to be addressed before we can get to the crux of the matter.

Space / footprint / physical structure - I want to address these first. On larger / capital ships this may be easier to deal with, as there may be more space to 'locate' a unit. However at nearly 6000KG just for the modified CIWS Mount & tracker unit (without the 11 missiles), that is a fair chunk of chump change that needs to be accounted for structurally & in the overall stability calcs for the ship. The higher the weight goes on a ship, the more effect it has in the ships design / top speed & turning capability.

RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile - Wikipedia

While the units are not technically deck penetrating, they need a very specific deck seat to be mounted on, with the under deck structure needing to be reinforced to accept the forces on the deck itself from the weight & the stress of the launching of missiles itself. The location of the mount has always been predominately mounted in pairs (fore/aft of Port/Stbd), with most ships preferring the Port/Stbd option, as it gives the widest field of fire, without too much concern about shooting up the structure of your own ship.

Next is the bit that many people don't take note of - the electronics units & associated cabling / power supplies / ancillary equipment. The system is based on phalanx, which can be controlled in a stand alone mode (by an operator at a system specific control station), or set-up as 'automatic mode'. This equipment takes up physical space on the ship, as well as needing a connection into the Ops room / CIC, so that the Command team can control the equipment / utilise it as & when required, to suit the operational situation as it evolves. This decision making also means that the ship can be manoeuvred to the best position for the system to operate (beam on / Bow on), to help with preventing both systems being active at the same time, against the same target. Inputs from other ships systems such as Heading / Pitch & Roll / speed over the ground / Wind speed & Direction, etc. all need to be fed into the equipment, as well as HVAC (Cooling air) & the associated ducting. (It is also worth noting the Phalanx needs a cooling water system too, that SeaRAM does not). The ammunition would also have to be stored close by the mount, meaning either a magazine (more space utilised), or a magazine locker with fire detection / fire fighting capability.

Finally, there's support / overall costs - Phalanx & by association SeaRAM, is an expensive piece of equipment, requiring specialist tooling for maintenance / quite regimented maintenance routines / Line Replaceable Units that are effectively 'single source supply' from the OEM. Most units in service were acquired up to 20 years ago & have seen heavy active service, both on ships & as part of land based, base protection systems in the various wars & skirmishes 'in the lands of sand'. Initial equipment outlay / maintenance costs per year versus amount of time available & the life of the equipment all make the systems 'expensive'.

There are other 'related discussions' here that look specifically why the UK RN 'opted' to go with Block 1B over SeaRAM, which may help with the discussion...

Will the Royal Navy replace Phalanx with SeaRAM? - Quora


SA

 

[JohnWolf]

I appreciate that there are some additional answers / comments above that will follow the same vein as my response, but I want to address the aspects of SeaRAM specifically, so here goes.

(Space / foot print) / Power supplies / physical structure / support / overall costs.

These are x5 key factors that need to be addressed before we can get to the crux of the matter.

Space / footprint / physical structure - I want to address these first. On larger / capital ships this may be easier to deal with, as there may be more space to 'locate' a unit. However at nearly 6000KG just for the modified CIWS Mount & tracker unit (without the 11 missiles), that is a fair chunk of chump change that needs to be accounted for structurally & in the overall stability calcs for the ship. The higher the weight goes on a ship, the more effect it has in the ships design / top speed & turning capability.

RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile - Wikipedia

While the units are not technically deck penetrating, they need a very specific deck seat to be mounted on, with the under deck structure needing to be reinforced to accept the forces on the deck itself from the weight & the stress of the launching of missiles itself. The location of the mount has always been predominately mounted in pairs (fore/aft of Port/Stbd), with most ships preferring the Port/Stbd option, as it gives the widest field of fire, without too much concern about shooting up the structure of your own ship.

Next is the bit that many people don't take note of - the electronics units & associated cabling / power supplies / ancillary equipment. The system is based on phalanx, which can be controlled in a stand alone mode (by an operator at a system specific control station), or set-up as 'automatic mode'. This equipment takes up physical space on the ship, as well as needing a connection into the Ops room / CIC, so that the Command team can control the equipment / utilise it as & when required, to suit the operational situation as it evolves. This decision making also means that the ship can be manoeuvred to the best position for the system to operate (beam on / Bow on), to help with preventing both systems being active at the same time, against the same target. Inputs from other ships systems such as Heading / Pitch & Roll / speed over the ground / Wind speed & Direction, etc. all need to be fed into the equipment, as well as HVAC (Cooling air) & the associated ducting. (It is also worth noting the Phalanx needs a cooling water system too, that SeaRAM does not). The ammunition would also have to be stored close by the mount, meaning either a magazine (more space utilised), or a magazine locker with fire detection / fire fighting capability.

Finally, there's support / overall costs - Phalanx & by association SeaRAM, is an expensive piece of equipment, requiring specialist tooling for maintenance / quite regimented maintenance routines / Line Replaceable Units that are effectively 'single source supply' from the OEM. Most units in service were acquired up to 20 years ago & have seen heavy active service, both on ships & as part of land based, base protection systems in the various wars & skirmishes 'in the lands of sand'. Initial equipment outlay / maintenance costs per year versus amount of time available & the life of the equipment all make the systems 'expensive'.

There are other 'related discussions' here that look specifically why the UK RN 'opted' to go with Block 1B over SeaRAM, which may help with the discussion...

Will the Royal Navy replace Phalanx with SeaRAM? - Quora


SA

Thanks, another great post!
I wish I had more time to go into that, but in breif I did not know about the water & ammo requirments; looking at them makes them seem like one little self-contained unit, even up close.
Will have to re-think a few things now.

 

[Systems Adict]

Thanks, another great post!
I wish I had more time to go into that, but in breif I did not know about the water & ammo requirments; looking at them makes them seem like one little self-contained unit, even up close.
Will have to re-think a few things now.

Working within a shipbuild / ship design area for the last 15 years has taught me that even 'simple' things like say changing out an upper deck self protection / man operated gun system (such as GPMG), to replace it with 0.50 Cal MG's, is a logistical & expensive nightmare.

Guns are different physical sizes / shapes, so are the mounting points. This affects structure / requirements for armour protection for the operator, as gun mount positions are higher.
Ammo is different & ammo containers hold less per box (0.50 Cal), than the GPMG - translates to more space needed to store same amount of rounds.
Magazine safety case needs to be reviewed, as 0.50 Cal rounds hold a higher NEQ, therefore there's more stuff to go bang inside the magazine.
Support equipment / weapon stowage's are different between the variants, so more space needed / new equipment to be procured.

The list goes on & on...

...& that IS an easy one...

 

[ngatimozart]

Working within a shipbuild / ship design area for the last 15 years has taught me that even 'simple' things like say changing out an upper deck self protection / man operated gun system (such as GPMG), to replace it with 0.50 Cal MG's, is a logistical & expensive nightmare.

Guns are different physical sizes / shapes, so are the mounting points. This affects structure / requirements for armour protection for the operator, as gun mount positions are higher.
Ammo is different & ammo containers hold less per box (0.50 Cal), than the GPMG - translates to more space needed to store same amount of rounds.
Magazine safety case needs to be reviewed, as 0.50 Cal rounds hold a higher NEQ, therefore there's more stuff to go bang inside the magazine.
Support equipment / weapon stowage's are different between the variants, so more space needed / new equipment to be procured.

The list goes on & on...

...& that IS an easy one...

Hmm they didn't worry about that too much in the Solomon Islands in 1942 when the crew added the unofficial armament to the original HMNZS Kiwi T102. Some 20 mm Oerlikon cannon that went walkabout from bombed Liberty ships, 50 cal MGs off aircraft that appeared in the middle of night. Apparently they were loafing. Some were traded for navy rum, others were requisitioned without the benefit of paperwork. After she rammed and sank the IJN submarine I-1 near Guadalcanal in January 1943, she had to return to Auckland for comprehensive repairs to the bow. This necessitated removal of the substantial unofficial armament prior to departure from the Solomon Islands.

 

[DDG38]

Hmm they didn't worry about that too much in the Solomon Islands in 1942 when the crew added the unofficial armament to the original HMNZS Kiwi T102. Some 20 mm Oerlikon cannon that went walkabout from bombed Liberty ships, 50 cal MGs off aircraft that appeared in the middle of night. Apparently they were loafing. Some were traded for navy rum, others were requisitioned without the benefit of paperwork. After she rammed and sank the IJN submarine I-1 near Guadalcanal in January 1943, she had to return to Auckland for comprehensive repairs to the bow. This necessitated removal of the substantial unofficial armament prior to departure from the Solomon Islands.

Meh, sailors will rabbit anything, particularly if it'll help protect them. Or make the rec space look pretty.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hmm they didn't worry about that too much in the Solomon Islands in 1942 when the crew added the unofficial armament to the original HMNZS Kiwi T102. Some 20 mm Oerlikon cannon that went walkabout from bombed Liberty ships, 50 cal MGs off aircraft that appeared in the middle of night. Apparently they were loafing. Some were traded for navy rum, others were requisitioned without the benefit of paperwork. After she rammed and sank the IJN submarine I-1 near Guadalcanal in January 1943, she had to return to Auckland for comprehensive repairs to the bow. This necessitated removal of the substantial unofficial armament prior to departure from the Solomon Islands.

PT109, a USN Patrol Torpedo Boat commanded by then L. (jg) John F. Kennedy, had a US Army 37 mm AT gun mounted forward, just prior to her service loss in 1943.

I am sure that the QM Corps notation accounting for the loss of that issued gun (to whichever US ARMY unit...) was "interesting" to say the least. OTOH it does suggest that the Desert Rats were not the only ones with Ali Baba around...

 

[ngatimozart]

Meh, sailors will rabbit anything, particularly if it'll help protect them. Or make the rec space look pretty.

Yep, if it isn't bolted, welded, and concreted down it can be rabbited.

 

[oldsig127]

Yep, if it isn't bolted, welded, and concreted down it can be rabbited.

A former soldier of my very near acquaintance - someone looking astonishingly like me - could perhaps furnish proof that even those means aren't foolproof protection.

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

Yep, if it isn't bolted, welded, and concreted down it can be rabbited.

I would tend to disagree, as such measures really just means it might (emphasis MIGHT) take a little longer...

 

[Feanor]

I have a question, and I apologize if it's a stupid one, but I found some Russian sources claiming that distance between the radar and the CIWS decreases its accuracy. I.e. a setup like Phalax is preferable to something like Kortik which has two spaced apart cannons, and even more preferable to the AK-630 setup which depends on the mast-mounted radar. Is this true? Are there advantages/disadvantages to the accuracy of the CIWS vis-a-vis placement of the radar?