Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Modern CIWS systems

This is a discussion on Modern CIWS systems within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 4.33 average.
Old January 17th, 2007   #16
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossfrb_1 View Post
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_for...0111_1_n.shtml
"Rheinmetall, Saab offer naval ASRAD-R

By Miroslav Gyurosi

Rheinmetall Defence Electronics and Saab Bofors Dynamics are jointly developing a naval air-defence version of the Atlas Short-Range Air Defence (ASRAD-R) light surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. It will face competition from a naval version of the Poprad, a lightweight system based on the ZM Mesko Grom infrared-guided SAM.

The new ASRAD-R Naval Air Defence System combines a remotely controlled ASRAD weapon pedestal carrying four Bolide laser beam-riding SAMs (a further development of the highly successful RBS 70 Mk 2) and an electro-optic sensor package. Suitable for use on all sizes of warship, it is intended to provide a defence against low-flying fixed-wing and rotary-wing threats.

Polish company CNPEP Radwar has been promoting a proposed naval version of its land-based Poprad, a vehicle-based short-range SAM system whose launch pedestal carries four ready-to-fire Grom missiles - a weapon originally developed as a man-portable air-defence system (MANPADS).

Although CNPEP Radwar has displayed a scale model of a ship's bow fitted with a navalised Poprad launcher installation, work on this proposed variant is still at a very early stage.

171 of 485 words
© 2006 Jane's Information Group
[End of non-subscriber extract]
"


Given that the ADF already operates the Bolides version of the missile, does this system become a possible contender for the CIWS for AWD/ANZACs? (Where previously Mistral and RAMs were the only rumoured contenders)
I don't know whether the RAN has or has not decided whether ISSM alone (in the case of the ANZACs) is sufficient for the job.
I do note that this system doesn't seem suitable for taking out incoming ASMs and I'm unsure of where this ranks in terms of desirability for the RAN.
rb
To my knowledge the RAN hasn't made a decision yet as to whether it will definitely mount a VSRAD system on its Anzacs.

Have a look at AD's Post 18 in 'Anzac Ship Upgrades':
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger

As to the CIWS issue, as I understand it, Phalanx could be integrated quite quickly (a matter of hours if not days) if necessary as the major parts required (baseplate etc) are already installed. The fact that this has never been done though even on numerous operational deployments, shows A) how confident RAN must be in ESSM and B) the sort of confidence it has in Phalanx, as RAN has plenty of Phalanx systems it COULD deploy aboard an ANZAC frigate if it wanted to.

As to the ASMD upgrade a "2nd layer" "very short ranged air defence" (VSRAD) system was to be included under the original "2nd channel of fire" proposal I mentioned earlier. No definite system was officially announced by Government or RAN, but it was widely reported within Australian Defence and Defence Industry circles that the "Mistral" missile (in either SIMBAD or SADRAL form) was the likely system.

Now that this "2nd channel of fire" capability is to be greatly exceeded by the 3D radar with it's "multiple channels of fire" capability, RAN is reportedly now re-assessing whether it needs the 2nd VSRAD capability anymore.

The thinking behind this is that since the new radar/combat system combo can control numerous missiles simultaneously, can ESSM do the job all by itself and given that ESSM is far more capable than RAM, Mistral or any other such system, would this then be sufficient for RAN's total ASMD needs???
Anzac Ship upgrades for Australia

I expect that the RAN would want a second tier system to be able to take out any target, including AS missiles so any system selected would presumably need to meet this criterion. If a VSRAD sytem is not fitted to the Anzacs I believe that the second Mk41 VLS system ought to be fitted to provide a total of 64 ESSMs.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2007   #17
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Falstaff's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aachen, Germany
Posts: 524
Threads:
Whenever I think of CIWS a few questions come to my mind, which I have because of the total abscence of knowledge about the true performance data of different CIWS-systems. By that I don't mean range or firing rate but how effective these things actually are against e.g. multi angle saturation attacks and tricky flight paths.

1. As far as I can see the Zumwalt class won't have a barreled CIWS at all and will rely on missiles only. And it won't have RAM either. Perhaps that's due to stealth issues. But I wonder if the days of the multi-layered = multi sytem missile defence are over?

2. The LCS relies on RAM as a CIWS only. So does the whole german navy, which (besides the fact that RAM is a american/german development) doesn't employ barreled CIWS at all, although it sure could get Phalanx or Goalkeeper very easily. The new MLG 27 too doesn't have an anti-missile capability. So why is that? Could it be that the barreled CIWSs aren't that effective at all? (Yes, I know I'm german, but I think one can say objectively that the german navy may be slow sometimes but judges and choses their systems very carefully)

3. The Brit's claim the Principal missile system is the only that can defeat the Club- Given that this is true (I personally don't know if it is too wise to claim that and not leave the Club-users with a little more confidence) are modern AShM with their enhanced flight paths too hard to defeat for the present day CIWSs?

4. What has become of the Metalstorm? Perhaps one of the Australien buddies here knows about it?

Perhaps somebody knows more than I do and can answer my questions.
Falstaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2007   #18
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Whenever I think of CIWS a few questions come to my mind, which I have because of the total abscence of knowledge about the true performance data of different CIWS-systems. By that I don't mean range or firing rate but how effective these things actually are against e.g. multi angle saturation attacks and tricky flight paths.

1. As far as I can see the Zumwalt class won't have a barreled CIWS at all and will rely on missiles only. And it won't have RAM either. Perhaps that's due to stealth issues. But I wonder if the days of the multi-layered = multi sytem missile defence are over?
As I understand things, the Zumwalts are going to rely on ESSMs for close in defence as they are more than capable of this. So the Phalanx is apparently considered redundant and that redundancy also covers the RAM. The standoff range of a 20 mm gun is too low also. I'm not of the impression that this choice is stealth related.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
2. The LCS relies on RAM as a CIWS only. So does the whole german navy, which (besides the fact that RAM is a american/german development) doesn't employ barreled CIWS at all, although it sure could get Phalanx or Goalkeeper very easily. The new MLG 27 too doesn't have an anti-missile capability. So why is that? Could it be that the barreled CIWSs aren't that effective at all? (Yes, I know I'm german, but I think one can say objectively that the german navy may be slow sometimes but judges and choses their systems very carefully)
RAM has a longer engagement range and can counter maneuvering missiles at these ranges much better than a gun. The excellent 27mm gun is for protection against surface threats. No reason to put high-end fire controls on such a weapon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
3. The Brit's claim the Principal missile system is the only that can defeat the Club- Given that this is true (I personally don't know if it is too wise to claim that and not leave the Club-users with a little more confidence) are modern AShM with their enhanced flight paths too hard to defeat for the present day CIWSs?
I'm not sure the Brits are laying claim to that it will be the only system that could counter Klubs, but it was high on the list when the spec was written. Present day AShM should preferably defeated at a distance so that the vessel don't get hit by debris. Standoff range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
4. What has become of the Metalstorm? Perhaps one of the Australien buddies here knows about it?

Perhaps somebody knows more than I do and can answer my questions.
Oh, I'll leave that to the Aussies.

Anyhow, in extension of rossfrb_1's question, I would just love to hear what the resident gun bunnies have to say on the two different ammunition concepts that Phalanx and Milleniums AHEAD represents.

The 14mm saboted tungsten vs the 35mm cloud of tungsten pellets...

...and then there is also Davide, yet another concept...
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

Last edited by Grand Danois; January 20th, 2007 at 04:55 PM. Reason: sp
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2007   #19
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
4. What has become of the Metalstorm? Perhaps one of the Australien buddies here knows about it?

Perhaps somebody knows more than I do and can answer my questions.
Metal Storm is stil trading, though as far as I know, it has never actually made a proft. I understand it's about to launch a float (or at least did so recently) to gain additional capital...

They seemed to be pinning their initial hopes on an ADF purchase of either their "under barrel" 40mm launching system, or their "area denial" weapon system.

Army has shown some interest in the "under barrel" weapon. Don't know about the rest of their gear. GF could probably offer a few more
insights...
  Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2007   #20
Tribal Warlord
Colonel
Pathfinder-X's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Glorious Soviet Canuckistan
Posts: 1,344
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
Metal Storm is stil trading, though as far as I know, it has never actually made a proft. I understand it's about to launch a float (or at least did so recently) to gain additional capital...

They seemed to be pinning their initial hopes on an ADF purchase of either their "under barrel" 40mm launching system, or their "area denial" weapon system.

Army has shown some interest in the "under barrel" weapon. Don't know about the rest of their gear. GF could probably offer a few more
insights...
Just saw a program on discovery channel with the Vice President of Metal Storm explaining/advertising his handgun. Pretty neat stuff, since 3 or more rounds can be fired before the recoil is felt. It literally torn a body armour to shreds in a test.

They seem to have big plans for their product, although they haven't earned a dime yet. The concept certainly sounds good on paper, but we'll just have to wait a bit to see if it lives up to the hype.
________________
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you’re not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think “at least somebody can stand the son of a bitch.” Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
Pathfinder-X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2007   #21
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
....
2. The LCS relies on RAM as a CIWS only....
Eeeerr... Are you saying that the LCS is relying on RAM as their ONLY CIWS? Which should be incorrect since the 57mm gun is capabel of dealing with both surface AND air threaths.

/Dan
z1pp0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2007   #22
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by z1pp0 View Post
Eeeerr... Are you saying that the LCS is relying on RAM as their ONLY CIWS? Which should be incorrect since the 57mm gun is capabel of dealing with both surface AND air threaths.

/Dan
IMO, the 57mm may be a capable AA gun, as is the 76mm and 127mm, but it is not a CIWS. You would be hoping that the 57mm might bring down a target before it gets into CIWS range. The CIWS is the last line of defence, other, perhaps, than potshots from manually operated MGs (and if you are depending on them then the situation has probably reached the hopeless stage!).

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2007   #23
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 446
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
IMO, the 57mm may be a capable AA gun, as is the 76mm and 127mm, but it is not a CIWS. You would be hoping that the 57mm might bring down a target before it gets into CIWS range. The CIWS is the last line of defence, other, perhaps, than potshots from manually operated MGs (and if you are depending on them then the situation has probably reached the hopeless stage!).

Cheers


I am inclined to think that a 57mm suitably armed (3P ammunition) and 'sensored' and 'controlled', could be part of a system that acts as a CIWS. Would you really want it as your main line of defence as a CIWS? Maybe not. I say this not knowing one (probably many) crucial factor(S) - just how close can the 3P 57mm be accurately fused to burst (ie engagement range)? Presuming that no one disputes that a 35mm system like Millenium (using AHEAD ammunition) can be thought of as a CIWS. Then I will assume that 57mm 3P rounds can similarly also be suitably fused for close in engagement. I know that AHEAD and 3P aren't exactly the same, but I see them as principally similar (capable) technologies.
This suggests to me that a 57mm can be used starting at a longer engagement distance (~17km?) than traditional CIWS (~6km and less) to fairly close. Understandably just how close is important to my argument.

A quick and dirty google brought up a few interesting sites
like anything googe-able the information should be taken with a grain of salt.
slide show some info re 40mm and 57mm 3P AMMUNITION
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/boren.pdf

naval 40mm and 57mm gun system data
http://www.uniteddefense.com/prod/ngun_mk3.htm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSw...7-70_mk123.htm
57mm evolution

If the above sites are accurate, the 57mm 3P contains > 8000 fragments with a 0.46kg explosive charge versus >3000 and 0.12kg for the 40mm.
If you can accurately fuse the ammo for close (engagement range) work, that's a lot of tungsten pellets flying around (ROF 220 rounds per minute ~3 a second). When you really need them. The weakest point then becomes the targetting and control systems (crucial for any CIWS).
Where is this ramble headed?
Maybe the 57mm could be considered as a MCIWS?
rossfrb_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2007   #24
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Falstaff's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aachen, Germany
Posts: 524
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossfrb_1 View Post
If the above sites are accurate, the 57mm 3P contains > 8000 fragments with a 0.46kg explosive charge versus >3000 and 0.12kg for the 40mm.
If you can accurately fuse the ammo for close (engagement range) work, that's a lot of tungsten pellets flying around (ROF 220 rounds per minute ~3 a second). When you really need them. The weakest point then becomes the targetting and control systems (crucial for any CIWS).
Where is this ramble headed?
Maybe the 57mm could be considered as a MCIWS?
Hm, that's interesting. I always thougt that the weak spot of the "large calibre" guns was their relatively low firing rate (and 220 rounds per minute is quite low compared to other CIWSs) and thus unability to lay a bullet carpet in the incoming (maneuvering) missiles' flight path.
I don't know if the 57mm will be used in a CIWS role. Besides targetting and fire control there is also the question if the gun moves fast enough to deal with maneuvering AShM.
IMHO a very intersting approach is that guided ammunition for the OTO-Melare 76mm SR

From www.navweaps.com:

Quote:
DART stands for "Driven Ammunition Reduced Time of flight." This is a sub-caliber, guided projectile with canard control, intended to improve the performance of these guns in the antimissile role. DART is scheduled for service introduction in 2007. OTO-Melara claims that an average of only three of these projectiles are needed per engagement. The proximity fuzes for this munition are said to be effective within 6 feet (2 m) of the water surface and are designed to trigger when within 30 feet (10 m) of the target. A November 2005 OTO-Melara Press Release stated that firing trials with DART had been performed at PISQ (Poligono Interforze Salto di Quirra), an Italian interservice firing range located in Sardinia. During the firing trials, the DART projectiles correctly entered and followed the guidance beam and manuevered within the accuracy requirements for distances over 5,500 yards (5,000 m). This is seen as a crucial milestone, as these tests showed that DART can be successfully guided over the expected engagement ranges.
Falstaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2007   #25
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 446
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Hm, that's interesting. I always thougt that the weak spot of the "large calibre" guns was their relatively low firing rate (and 220 rounds per minute is quite low compared to other CIWSs) and thus unability to lay a bullet carpet in the incoming (maneuvering) missiles' flight path.
[snip]

From www.navweaps.com:
Using open source data, the 57mm at 220 rounds a minute, (thats 3.66 a second) with >8000 3 g tungsten fragments per round (muzzle velocity 1035m/s) can put out a carpet of >28800 pellets a second versus the 35mm Millenium AHEAD system (a ROF of 16 rounds a second, each round having 152 3.3g pellets (muzzle velocity 1050 m/s)) putting out 2432 pellets a second. Of course there's a little more to it than that, but it seems to me that the 57mm could have CIWS capability.
rossfrb_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2007   #26
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,987
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rossfrb_1 View Post
Using open source data, the 57mm at 220 rounds a minute, (thats 3.66 a second) with >8000 3 g tungsten fragments per round (muzzle velocity 1035m/s) can put out a carpet of >28800 pellets a second versus the 35mm Millenium AHEAD system (a ROF of 16 rounds a second, each round having 152 3.3g pellets (muzzle velocity 1050 m/s)) putting out 2432 pellets a second. Of course there's a little more to it than that, but it seems to me that the 57mm could have CIWS capability.
The use of this type of warhead should certainly gives a gun like the 57mm a vastly improved capability against close in targets. Something else that would have to be considered is the speed with which the gun mount can be trained on target. Is there a mount available that would enable a 57mm to track as fast as say a Phalanx CIWS?

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2007   #27
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Falstaff's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Aachen, Germany
Posts: 524
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasman View Post
Something else that would have to be considered is the speed with which the gun mount can be trained on target. Is there a mount available that would enable a 57mm to track as fast as say a Phalanx CIWS?
Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't find a source for that. Does anybody know about it?
Falstaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2007   #28
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 354
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't find a source for that. Does anybody know about it?
That's a non issue. As an example, you can use a COTS linear track motor that can accelerate 2 tons at 10m/sec. So lets say your turret ring is about 3m in circumference, then you can spin a car at 360 degrees/sec.

The question is cost. Are you willing to pay the 20 or 30K to install a system like that? For a gun working 3 axis you are talking 90K just for the motors and installation.

cheers


w
Wooki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2007   #29
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,939
Threads:
Are this civil prices?

If yes double the price at minimum.
We are talking of military purchases.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2007   #30
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,987
Threads:
57mm CIWS

I guess the answer then is that we could rig a 57mm to be able to track a target quickly enough for the CIWS role, and given the right ammunition it might be reasonably effective. Whether it would be more cost effective than existing CIWS systems is debatable but it would certainly provide a weapon with dual capability.Given though that no navy, AFAIK, has attempted to use a calibre this large for the CIWS role, it seems that there is no great enthusiasm for this kind of concept.

Cheers
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:05 AM.