Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_AH-1Z_3171-1.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_0952-1.jpg

Yuma_17_AV-8B_2497-1.jpg

Yuma_17_P-51_2653-1.jpg
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; 3P can only be used with the Mk3 turret. There are only four users of the Mk3 worldwide (Sweden, Finland, ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 4.33 average.
Old January 11th, 2010   #76
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,961
Threads:
3P can only be used with the Mk3 turret. There are only four users of the Mk3 worldwide (Sweden, Finland, Mexico, USA). All four use 3P.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2010   #77
Defense Professional / Analyst
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scarborough
Posts: 114
Threads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zxxogDRIw

Hi
I've been looking at this, which while impresive does not seem the done deal. Is it just me or would a gun bassed system knock the drone out much quicker?
deepsixteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 21st, 2010   #78
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,872
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepsixteen View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zxxogDRIw


Hi
I've been looking at this, which while impresive does not seem the done deal. Is it just me or would a gun bassed system knock the drone out much quicker?
Much quicker - but the laser weapon is being developed, not operationally deployed. So give them a few more years and see how it looks then - can't improve its performance levels without developing it.
Bonza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2010   #79
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Impressive clip. It's not clear how long the laser took to disable the target. I could see issues with targeting in that the laser would need to be locked on the target for the duration on the engagement, like a beam riding missile. However it was some years before the longbow was effectively surpassed by early matchlocks.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2010   #80
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,688
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
Impressive clip. It's not clear how long the laser took to disable the target. I could see issues with targeting in that the laser would need to be locked on the target for the duration on the engagement, like a beam riding missile. However it was some years before the longbow was effectively surpassed by early matchlocks.
8 seconds from first beam of light (possibly smoke?) and the burst of flames.

Remember that it is basically a remote control aircraft though, and the material its made from is probably only very thin.

On the other hand, the laser used was only 32kw. Thats 16 2000w blow heaters. Not very powerful is it?
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2010   #81
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,961
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
Impressive clip. It's not clear how long the laser took to disable the target.
However, the clip reveals that they're still using a long-duration laser shining instead of a high-powered short-pulse concept (the power in kW doesn't say anything about that - it's the energy that's decisive).
In the clip it's rather clear that the laser takes a while to melt through the outer hull of the UAV, creating a hole through which ignited fuel then escapes; this is congruent with the UAV keeping up flight, then losing stability and finally going down. With a short-pulse system, we'd instead see a small explosion ("phase explosion") in the impact area before that flame erupts.

Just for comparison, a Phalanx at intercept range imparts about a hundred times as much energy on the target as this laser over the same period in time. Then again a burst over this much time would be overkill from a Phalanx anyway
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2010   #82
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Central NSW
Posts: 1,688
Threads:
Well....1 watt is 1 joule per second.

so that laser is 32kJ/sec.

Who knows how much of the energy is lost in the atmosphere by the time it reaches the target thought.

And as I already stated, 32kW is hardly a massively powerful laser anyway.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2010   #83
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
Well....1 watt is 1 joule per second.

so that laser is 32kJ/sec.

Who knows how much of the energy is lost in the atmosphere by the time it reaches the target thought.

And as I already stated, 32kW is hardly a massively powerful laser anyway.
It seems that you guys are missing the most important feature of the Phalanx CIWS system. That is, it uses a close loop fire control system with two radars. One radar to track the target and one radar to track the bullets going to the target. Not an open loop system that all the others use that only track the target and not the miss distance. If it can track the target it will ever miss. The fire control system and mount can be used with many weapons not just a gun. They can use it to shoot down multiple mortar shells and rockets in land applications. As far as the laser application that is coming for the CIWS function, they are deploying a land based version right now.
They are not testing the laser destruct potential in the video but the tracking and propagation effects at sea level under various weather conditions. Also, they want to be able to use the system also on small craft in ether a lethal and non-lethal mode.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2010   #84
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,961
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
Not an open loop system that all the others use that only track the target and not the miss distance.
Tracking the line of fire is pretty much standard. Goalkeeper, Kashtan and Palma do it too, for example. Not necessarily by radar, some - especially Kashtan - may use an optronic channel instead (which is far more reliable in a high-intensity ECM environment).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
They are not testing the laser destruct potential in the video but the tracking and propagation effects at sea level under various weather conditions.
You don't need to actually shoot something for that though; at least not a target UAV that costs money.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 14th, 2010   #85
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: California
Posts: 75
Threads:
So, 1 Moskit fired at a single U.S. Arleigh Burke(which for some reason only has it's Phalanx CIWS systems active), who'd win?

I found this infographic from a Raytheon brochure regarding the Phalanx:


A couple things to notice. The first is that the Phalanx in question is engaging a MQM-8G Vandal drone which is a variant of the RIM-8 Talos. Next, the drone was about 17,500 ft(5,300 m) in altitude, coming down at an angle of 30 degrees which gave it a velocity of about Mach 2.4 or 815 meters per second. Next, the drone was engaged(detected) at about 33,000 ft(10 km), the Phalanx opened fire at about 11,000 ft(3.3 km) and the target was destroyed at about 4,700 ft(900 meters). From the open firing distance to the destruction distance, it was about 6,300ft(1.9 km). Given that the drone was traveling at Mach 2.4, that makes the the time from firing to destruction out to about 2.3 seconds. In that 2.3 second span, 115-172 rounds could of been expended at the vandal.

To be quite honest with you, given that altitude and the *not so maneuvering* drone that was used in that test, I don't see how a Moskit could be defeated by a Phalanx. Of course, this is unless Moskits are rather killed by Missile CIWSs or I'm missing some facts. If someone knows a bit more on this subject, please provide.
IronsightSniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2011   #86
Just Hatched
Private
chkyr6's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9
Threads:
I agree, I would be much more impressed if it were a powerful quick burst. Its nice if you have all day to follow the target but seems unimpressive for defense....I dont know all the other techincal stuff so its all from what I see
chkyr6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23rd, 2011   #87
Just Hatched
Private
chkyr6's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9
Threads:
and I love the tag on the video, ..."SECRET testing off the coast of ...." and some sailor has their cell phone out grabbing video and uploading it to youtube! lol
chkyr6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011   #88
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 16
Threads:
Has no one considered the bofors 40mm mk 3? it's radar guided, has a high rate of fire and changable amuntion to suit specific purposes. coupled with a RAM system it should increase engagement range instead of relying on the small radar guided guns (such as the phalanx) which are becoming obsolete due to faster and improved missiles.
B1RDY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011   #89
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1RDY View Post
Has no one considered the bofors 40mm mk 3? it's radar guided, has a high rate of fire and changable amuntion to suit specific purposes. coupled with a RAM system it should increase engagement range instead of relying on the small radar guided guns (such as the phalanx) which are becoming obsolete due to faster and improved missiles.
Is the 57mm on the DDG1000 planned as a replacement for the Phalanx or in addition? Does anyone know if the USN ever considered upgrading Phalanx with 30mm?
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2011   #90
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,961
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1RDY View Post
Has no one considered the bofors 40mm mk 3? it's radar guided, has a high rate of fire and changable amuntion to suit specific purposes.
The Bofors 40mm Mk3 fires at 330 rpm, which is utterly useless for this purpose. Italy has a CIWS in the same caliber, Dardo aka Breda Twin Fast Forty. The older version using twin 330 rpm guns (660 rpm total) had a verified intercept chance of 30% versus subsonic missiles. The newer version of the mount firing at a combined 900 rpm is slightly more useful.

As for the 57mm i think i remember seeing intercept numbers for the Mk110 somewhere, but can't find them right now... i do remember not being particularly impressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1805 View Post
Does anyone know if the USN ever considered upgrading Phalanx with 30mm?
Whatever would they do that for? And exactly what 30mm gun would that use that even remotely fits into R2D2? ASP-30?
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 AM.