Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[WaveWalker]

I doubt that every vessel would need to be fitted at the same time. How often has the RAN, or any navy for that matter, had every single warship ready and available for deployment?

I would expect that in major wartime conditions, the normal 'Rule of Threes' might get modified or suspended, with some of the more minor maintenance and training cycles either postponed or cancelled outright. However, there will still be times when warships are undergoing significant maintenance or repair periods and not available for deployment for weeks or possibly even months at a time. In such cases, it would be much better to have a modular system which could be removed from the docked vessel and available to be used aboard another vessel.



Here is the rub with the above post. What (at this point in time) is an effective CIWS? Is it SeaPhalanx, Phalanx, RAM, SeaRAM, or something else entirely?

Given a choice, I would rather have a Phalanx fitted prior to deploying to a possible combat zone than not, unless something else more effective was available. However the Phalanx and SeaPhalanx systems have kind of had their day in terms of effectiveness vs. aerial threats. Remember that their effective range is less than 2km, which means that there would only be ~1.3 sec of firing possible against potential inbound supersonic AShM like the П-270 Москит /P-270 Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn.

This then leads into the question of whether or not the RAN should start bringing some other type of CIWS into service, or alternately if more sensor systems as well as VLS and missiles are needed, to detect and attempt to intercept such threats before they get into an inner defensive layer?

I raise the question not so much because I want an answer, but to raise the point that there are tradeoffs. Spending coin, albeit probably not all that much since I think Mk 15 Phalanx systems current cost something like USD$15 mil. on a system that potentially will not contribute to the overall defences of a vessel, does not make sense. It might be a better/wiser decision to instead increase the number of active decoys like Nulka fitted to RAN vessels. Or have the RAN add another missile type into the inventory, and begin integrating a missile-based CIWS and/or VSHORAD missile to the fleet.

What is an effective CIWS? Anything, if the ship has nothing when it is suddenly needed! We have billions of dollars of taxpayers money invested in these ship, they need to be well armed and defended.

 

[Redlands18]

What is an effective CIWS? Anything, if the ship has nothing when it is suddenly needed! We have billions of dollars of taxpayers money invested in these ship, they need to be well armed and defended.

The issue with CIWS is, that even if you hit a large Hypersonic Missile at even 4-500m, the likelihood is, even if you manage to destroy the missile, you are still going to suffer extensive, even crippling damage to your ship due to the sheer momentum the debris hit your ship with, and of course you have negated any soft kill countermeasures such as the Nulka Decoy system or any jamming systems you have on board.

 

[ddxx]

The issue with CIWS is, that even if you hit a large Hypersonic Missile at even 4-500m, the likelihood is, even if you manage to destroy the missile, you are still going to suffer extensive, even crippling damage to your ship due to the sheer momentum the debris hit your ship with, and of course you have negated any soft kill countermeasures such as the Nulka Decoy system or any jamming systems you have on board.

I guess that’s exactly why RAM is better for that role, it engages further out, with Nulka being the absolute final layer.

ESSM
Then RAM
Then Nulka

 

[ddxx]

It could be looked at I guess. I don't think there is a big taste for it. People aren't jumping out of their chairs about lack of Phalanx CIWS, they seem to be focused on VLS counts. The NSM are lighter, but they aren't hugely lighter, and harpoons aren't the only thing contributing to top weight issues.

Its pretty maxed out. Maybe they could fit something like CAMM that is nice and light with lighter launchers and could serve as an inner layer to ESSM.

I’m personally not a big fan of introducing CAMM - Adds another supply chain to consider whilst fitting in a weird space slightly overlapping the lower end of ESSM and the upper end of RAM?

 

[Wombat000]

The issue with CIWS is

I think the actual question here is whether or not an asset, such as a warship, deserves an organic & appropriate defensive suite?

If the current albeit upgraded type of CIWS is inappropriate then you either fix it or you don’t.

If the priority is budget then you adapt whatever fits, and accept shortfalls in availability & effectiveness of that defensive capability, and don’t be shocked if there’s a greater probability of losses.
If the priority is the dynamic integrity of the asset, then it gets suitably furnished with the appropriate countermeasures.

May god help the poor sod who signs off on the threat matrix if things go south.
but hey, it’s only a warship.

 

[Todjaeger]

What is an effective CIWS? Anything, if the ship has nothing when it is suddenly needed! We have billions of dollars of taxpayers money invested in these ship, they need to be well armed and defended.

I agree about the need for warships to be well armed and defended. The statement about what is an effective CIWS however is not really accurate, in part because there are variables to what will make a specific CIWS effective in different scenarios.

Looking at the RAN inventory, there is currently one weapon system designated as a CIWS which is the Mk 15 Phalanx. That system has already been identified as having limitations or limited effectiveness against certain types of aerial threats, even though it was originally designed to provide protection against such threats.

Using the P-270 Moskit as an example, it is a ~4,500 kg missile which will close at Mach 2+ and leaving a Mk 15 Phalanx only about one or two sec of firing between the missile entering the effective range of the Mk 15 and target on the target impact. With the upgrade to the Mk 15, that means it is possible for the gun to fire 75 to 150 rounds whilst the inbound missile is within the effective range of the gun. This is also assuming that an inbound missile is closing on a vector within the firing arc of a Mk 15 which might very well not be true.

Going further along with this, even if all 150 20 mm rounds were to successfully impact an inbound P-270, would they be able to inflict sufficient damage to the inbound missile that either the missile detonated safely away from the targeted ship, or the control surfaces and/or guidance systems were damage enough so that the missile went off course and safely impacted without damaging the ship.

It is unfortunate, but a 4,500 kg object moving at Mach 2+ is going to have a significant amount of KE and it, or even just fragments if the missile was damaged and started to break up before impact, keep going for quite a distance, with the potential for a ship kill (mission or outright) due to debris impacts. Again, this concern is largely why the RIM-116 RAM was developed as a point-defence weapon vs. AShM.

Now missile-based CIWS do exist, like the RIM-116 RAM and SeaRAM but again, trade off exists with those too. A Mk 15 Phalanx mounting has ~1,500 rounds loaded, whilst a RIM-116 RAM holds up to 21 missiles and a SEARAM mounting can only hold 11. Where this potentially limited munitions loadout comes up is if surface targets are engaged like hostile FAC, with something like a Phalanx likely being a more efficient and cost effective way of dealing with potential FAC swarms.

 

[Wombat000]

Pardon my short reply,
but if one determines that a ship of yours is likely to have a hypersonic spent on it, then you either dress it appropriately, or you don’t.

if one thinks that a ship is of relatively minor threat to the adversary, or a short enabler, then they may not bother with hypersonic missile attack? perhaps the current CIWS is sufficient, if fitted? just sayin…

but if your gunna be a pain to them, and they think they might spend an expensive missile to strike you, and you aren’t prepared….

 

[Todjaeger]

Pardon my short reply,
but if one determines that a ship of yours is likely to have a hypersonic spent on it, then you either dress it appropriately, or you don’t.

if one thinks that a ship is of relatively minor threat to the adversary, or a short enabler, then they may not bother with hypersonic missile attack? perhaps the current CIWS is sufficient, if fitted? just sayin…

but if your gunna be a pain to them, and they think they might spend an expensive missile to strike you, and you aren’t prepared….

But it is not really that simple. To begin with, an inbound AShM (sub, super or hypersonic, does not matter) would most likely be first engaged with ship-launched area air defence missiles. In the RAN, this would most likely start with examples from the Standard missile family (SM-1/2/3/6) depending on what vessels are in the area and what the timeframe is, since not all of those missile variants will likely be in service at the same time. Should the inbound AShM make it through an outer defensive layer which can be 200km+ from the targeted vessel, then I would expect intercept attempts to be made using ESSM from within 50km in an intermediate defensive layer. CIWS, whether they are gun or missile-based, would only become involved if both outer layers are penetrated without successful interception.

Now one might wish that more efforts were made with fitting CIWS in such circumstances, but again, everything is a trade off. Spending more in fielding and fitting CIWS to warships could come at the expense of other warship capabilities. Given the limitations in displacement as well as viable real estate to position weapons systems aboard a warship, which sounds like a better option, more VLS cells or a CIWS? I would personally prefer both, but this is not always an option, in which case I believe more utility would be had from having more VLS cells.

What is also worth considering is what is or would be required for the RAN to make a transition from the Mk 15 Phalanx to the RIM-116 RAM or SeaRAM. I am aware that the deck where a Mk 15 would be placed needs to be reinforced in order to handle the weight and energy from weapons fire, as well as the wiring and tubing for power, cooling and to tie into the vessel's CMS. What I do not know is whether or not mountings that can take a Mk 15 could take a RIM-116, or whether or not the hot gas exhaust is a potential consideration (I suspect it would be), so it might not be a trivial exercise for the RAN to switch systems. In fact, it might be that future RAN vessels need to have places set aside in their design for future CIWS to be positioned.

 

[Wombat000]

Thank you Todjaeger, for your reply.
i genuinely accept what you say, and mostly agree, I accept it.

i sadly understand that we have transgressed from the era of luxury of exercises, to a pending era of ships potentially genuinely burning.

having a policy of thirds for CIWS is actually not good enough anymore.
we simply cannot presume we have the luxury of movt for our MFUs to just waddle in at our convenience for fitting of suddenly vital equipment.

we either fit best POSSIBLE, or we don’t. -whatever the motivators of that decision is?
There may be practical limitations to what is optimal, but we need to aim for the best PRACTICAL optimal.

if there is genuine probability that a fleet unit might receive a hypersonic then we had better equip as best as practical to deal with it.

we either do that, or we don’t?
edit: emotive comment removed.

 

[old faithful]

But it is not really that simple. To begin with, an inbound AShM (sub, super or hypersonic, does not matter) would most likely be first engaged with ship-launched area air defence missiles. In the RAN, this would most likely start with examples from the Standard missile family (SM-1/2/3/6) depending on what vessels are in the area and what the timeframe is, since not all of those missile variants will likely be in service at the same time. Should the inbound AShM make it through an outer defensive layer which can be 200km+ from the targeted vessel, then I would expect intercept attempts to be made using ESSM from within 50km in an intermediate defensive layer. CIWS, whether they are gun or missile-based, would only become involved if both outer layers are penetrated without successful interception.

Now one might wish that more efforts were made with fitting CIWS in such circumstances, but again, everything is a trade off. Spending more in fielding and fitting CIWS to warships could come at the expense of other warship capabilities. Given the limitations in displacement as well as viable real estate to position weapons systems aboard a warship, which sounds like a better option, more VLS cells or a CIWS? I would personally prefer both, but this is not always an option, in which case I believe more utility would be had from having more VLS cells.

What is also worth considering is what is or would be required for the RAN to make a transition from the Mk 15 Phalanx to the RIM-116 RAM or SeaRAM. I am aware that the deck where a Mk 15 would be placed needs to be reinforced in order to handle the weight and energy from weapons fire, as well as the wiring and tubing for power, cooling and to tie into the vessel's CMS. What I do not know is whether or not mountings that can take a Mk 15 could take a RIM-116, or whether or not the hot gas exhaust is a potential consideration (I suspect it would be), so it might not be a trivial exercise for the RAN to switch systems. In fact, it might be that future RAN vessels need to have places set aside in their design for future CIWS to be positioned.

Defending a ship against hypersonic missiles is near impossible I'm afraid.
Let's say a ship detects an incoming missile and wants to engage it with Evolved sea sparrow.
At maximum range, say 50km, an incoming hypersonic missile travelling at 6000kph, will cover 50km in 8 seconds or so.
EW and nulka are really your only hope. Multiple hypersonic inbound, and you are probably going to die.Good time to be a submariner IMO.

 

[Todjaeger]

Defending a ship against hypersonic missiles is near impossible I'm afraid.
Let's say a ship detects an incoming missile and wants to engage it with Evolved sea sparrow.
At maximum range, say 50km, an incoming hypersonic missile travelling at 6000kph, will cover 50km in 8 seconds or so.
EW and nulka are really your only hope. Multiple hypersonic inbound, and you are probably going to die.Good time to be a submariner IMO.

Not necessarily, as there is potential for something like SM-6 to be used with ranges of up to ~240 km. That should provide an engagement window of about two minutes. Not a whole lot of time, but still... Also, a 6,000 kph object would take about 30 sec to close the entire engagement range of an ESSM, as such an object is moving ~1.67 km/s.

 

[WaveWalker]

Some interest points here, however if we’re are not going to defend our ships to the best of our ability, what’s the point of them? I accept that defence against hypersonic missiles is extremely difficult but not every missile is hypersonic, and I suspect the US Navy has Phalanx and RIM-116 for a reason.

 

[Todjaeger]

Some interest points here, however if we’re are not going to defend our ships to the best of our ability, what’s the point of them? I accept that defence against hypersonic missiles is extremely difficult but not every missile is hypersonic, and I suspect the US Navy has Phalanx and RIM-116 for a reason.

Yes, the USN has both Phalanx and RAM, but look at the development timelines for both systems, and also look at what is being fitted to vessels designed to serve in the USN. When I go through lists of some of the upcoming or newer classes of vessel in the USN, I do not see the Mk 15 Phalanx being fitted anymore. Going back, it appears that the designs which had lead ship construction in 2000 or later were fitted with RIM-116, but not the Mk 15 Phalanx. Older classes which are still in service or even being built (Arleigh Burke-class DDG for example) were designed to be fitted with the Mk 15 so the USN appears to be keeping it in service, at least for the time being.

With the RAN at times having such long periods between designs, it is quite possible to "miss the boat" in incorporating changes in weapon systems fitout. That might be what happened with the Mk 15 and RIM-116, OTOH that might not. Me being me, I place more importance on the overall weapons fitout for a vessel rather than the CIWS which is really a "Hail Mary" last line of defence. If one is down to using that, several things have already not gone in your favour.

 

[Stampede]

Some interest points here, however if we’re are not going to defend our ships to the best of our ability, what’s the point of them? I accept that defence against hypersonic missiles is extremely difficult but not every missile is hypersonic, and I suspect the US Navy has Phalanx and RIM-116 for a reason.

CIWS are realistically a hail Mary solution to incoming fast moving hostility, but its a better kinetic solution to the alternative of nothing!
Ships will always accommodate a gun based system to cater for slower moving air and surface threats close in, so realistically it makes sense to have these systems also having some ability to cater for all incoming threats. This includes ASM's!
You have already allocated the real-estate and weight for such systems.
The RAN falls down because we have not acknowledged such a need in the past where other navy's have and as such are now playing catch-up.
We built ships without accommodating this important inner layer of defence.

Hunters will have two CIWS to cater for their inner layer need of the "onion rings" of defence and also the fact that you need two systems on a gun based weapon system to provide 360 degree cover.
How many ships within the RAN today have fittings for two Phalanx systems?
I think none.
Supply class and Choules are suggested to have this potential, but I'm not sure they are fitted out as yet.
Hobart Class are limited to one mount and the Canberra Class remain a mystery.
The RAN have put total faith in ESSM and Nulka.
Good systems for sure, but if your placed into harms way some extra defensive insurance would be prudent.

Need to select a calibre for across the fleet post Phalanx 20mm / Bushmaster 25 mm.

Suggest it's bigger than 30mm

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Yes, the USN has both Phalanx and RAM, but look at the development timelines for both systems, and also look at what is being fitted to vessels designed to serve in the USN. When I go through lists of some of the upcoming or newer classes of vessel in the USN, I do not see the Mk 15 Phalanx being fitted anymore. Going back, it appears that the designs which had lead ship construction in 2000 or later were fitted with RIM-116, but not the Mk 15 Phalanx. Older classes which are still in service or even being built (Arleigh Burke-class DDG for example) were designed to be fitted with the Mk 15 so the USN appears to be keeping it in service, at least for the time being.

With the RAN at times having such long periods between designs, it is quite possible to "miss the boat" in incorporating changes in weapon systems fitout. That might be what happened with the Mk 15 and RIM-116, OTOH that might not. Me being me, I place more importance on the overall weapons fitout for a vessel rather than the CIWS which is really a "Hail Mary" last line of defence. If one is down to using that, several things have already not gone in your favour.

Just read your Hail Mary comment as I was posting.

Cheers S

 

[John Fedup]

CIWS are realistically a hail Mary solution to incoming fast moving hostility, but its a better kinetic solution to the alternative of nothing!
Ships will always accommodate a gun based system to cater for slower moving air and surface threats close in, so realistically it makes sense to have these systems also having some ability to cater for all incoming threats. This includes ASM's!
You have already allocated the real-estate and weight for such systems.
The RAN falls down because we have not acknowledged such a need in the past where other navy's have and as such are now playing catch-up.
We built ships without accommodating this important inner layer of defence.

Hunters will have two CIWS to cater for their inner layer need of the "onion rings" of defence and also the fact that you need two systems on a gun based weapon system to provide 360 degree cover.
How many ships within the RAN today have fittings for two Phalanx systems?
I think none.
Supply class and Choules are suggested to have this potential, but I'm not sure they are fitted out as yet.
Hobart Class are limited to one mount and the Canberra Class remain a mystery.
The RAN have put total faith in ESSM and Nulka.
Good systems for sure, but if your placed into harms way some extra defensive insurance would be prudent.

Need to select a calibre for across the fleet post Phalanx 20mm / Bushmaster 25 mm.

Suggest it's bigger than 30mm

Cheers S

Delete

 

[Oldbeagle]

Having no proprietary knowledge, I wonder if someone with more idea might comment on the use of lasers as the future of CIWS, specially against developing threats. Particularly given the shortcomings of the existing missile/gun systems available to the RAN derailed so succinctly in the discussions above.
thanks in advance Bob

 

[old faithful]

Two minutes if we have SM6 in numbers.
Don't forget modern hypersonic can manuovre, so 2 mins is best case scenario.
EW and and an evolution of NULKA is well worth exploring. This may be the very best defence against hypersonics.
Essm will be useless, phalanx will be useless.
Time to start paying boffins what they are worth.
Maybe forget corvettes and awd and think about 12 nuke subs.

 

[StoresBasher]

I doubt that every vessel would need to be fitted at the same time. How often has the RAN, or any navy for that matter, had every single warship ready and available for deployment?

In today's world zero chance, all RAN ships are in regular (post deployment/operating) maintenance, some more 'intensive' than others.

 

[Rob c]

I would suggest that before the proponents both for and against CIWS and what range they are effective or not effective, that they do the mathematics first, including mass, velocity, altitude and gravity before assuming whether debris will or won't hit the target ship and at what range this will happen. I did the calculation some time back for subsonic missiles, which showed that CIWS was very effective but have not done this for hypersonic missiles. However what range and altitude a hypersonic missiles debris will hit the intended target is at present appears to be speculative and needs to be calculated and not assumed.