Is Phalanx CIWS making a comeback?

amatsunz

New Member
Hello, I was wondering is someone knowlegable could tidy up something for me. The Latest DDG 51 class destroyers (From DDG 85 on) are being completed without the Phalanx CIWS, the plan was i belive to replace the system with a VLS ESSM. All pictures of the completed destroyers would back this up, however, the latest pics of the USS Shoup, http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/060417-N-5384B-051.jpg

Clearly show that the mounting for the system has been installed recently, pics of the Shoup when completed show that she didnt have it:
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=2084

I Cant find any evidence of it on any other post DDG 85 boat, so, Is the Phalanx making a come back? and specificly on the DDG 85+ boats (problems with ESSM perhaps?
 

Rich

Member
As far as I know they will be armed with SeaRam. And many warships in the fleet will also be fitted with RAM.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Phalanx was withdrawn as a primary CIWS some time ago. AFAIK its reserve stock only on new builds and even then its unlikely to be retro fitted.

I was being maintained on initial builds - but not on new ones.

Thats primarily because the killzone for Phalanx is not entirely effective against fast moving missiles (like supersonic cruise weapons). even though it will contact and engage the supersonics, the debris is still going to be close enough to perhaps cause some comms kills etc... so you could end up with a comms mobility kill even though the vessel is intact. RAM against a supersonic cruise missile is not an issue.

It all depends on your philosophy I suspect. I'd be of the view that in a molested environment you'd want as many layers as possible - but the USN has obviously done their sums and worked out that supersonic cruise missile attacks at short range can be adequately dealt with.

OTOH, CIWS like Phalanx and Goalkeeper are ideal zone conditioners for dealing with RPG wielding pirates ;) They're an ideal secondary engagement weapon for non close range supersonic ballistic threats.

There was a report made some time ago, but its been pulled out of publication for security reasons - so you'll have to take my word for it. ;)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Britain has just signed up for the Phalanx 1B up-grade to equip it's major surface combatants and the new Type 45's are being fitted with 2x 30mm CIWS...

Even though it's effectiveness in it's primary role may have been blunted somewhat, it still must retain SOME capability particularly as a last resort and it's effectiveness (especially cost related) in the anti-surface role againt fast attack craft, terrorists etc, means it is obviously still seen as a capable and desirable weapon system.

I know given the choice, I'd rather have a Block 1B Phalanx on-board the ANZAC's rather than a Typhoon 25mm...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
I know given the choice, I'd rather have a Block 1B Phalanx on-board the ANZAC's rather than a Typhoon 25mm...
by a golden mile... ;) we still keep our Phalanx in storage. they're ideal as a retro fit as they are non intrusive - and an all up self contained system with minimal integration problems.

I'd certainly be including them as secondary layers if operating in them gulf.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Can the Vulcan-phalanx elevate low enough to engage close in surface targets??? ie. USS Cole incident.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Can the Vulcan-phalanx elevate low enough to engage close in surface targets??? ie. USS Cole incident.
they can, but it appears that all the reliable official sources have pulled the declination data from the web.

declination + killzone figures are therefore a bit difficult to state on here.

the other thing is that the latest iteration is able to deel with a Mach 4.5 meeting engagement, so it would make a mess of a supersonic cruise missile. the concern has been that the break up of the cruise missile at min range could result in the superstructure copping fragmentation - even though the missile would be killed.

edit: I've checked in one of my Janes directories and its states a -20deg declination. for anything within 1.5km min engagement range.
 

long live usa

New Member
a good point was brought up why didint the USS cole engage that craft with CIWS or even the fifty cal.that were mounted on deck?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
long live usa said:
a good point was brought up why didint the USS cole engage that craft with CIWS or even the fifty cal.that were mounted on deck?
The USS Cole was ported in Yemen, refuelling at a USN depot at the time. The terrorist boat was one of many that sailed near the vessel, whilst it was in port. Back then I guess it wasn't US policy to simply "arc" up any vessels that sailed too close.

You wouldn't want to now though, I'd bet...
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Does any one know much the Sea RAM system cost and how effective is it. I have seen the price of US$400,000 per missile which seems excessive on a number of websites, given the size of the missile.

Also what would be better Sea RAM or the 21 Cell RAM Launcher linked into the ships systems.
 

Rocco_NZ

New Member
It's also a matter of horses for courses - Phalanx is adequate for dealing with smaller systems like Sea Skua and Exocet. Obviously the collateral damage from these exploding close to your ship has a order of magnitude difference with the heavyweight Russian systems.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Lucasnz said:
Does any one know much the Sea RAM system cost and how effective is it. I have seen the price of US$400,000 per missile which seems excessive on a number of websites, given the size of the missile.

Also what would be better Sea RAM or the 21 Cell RAM Launcher linked into the ships systems.
I agree with Rocco, it's a horses for Courses, issue I think. RAM gives you better firepower, meaning greater longevity in battle. However it relies on the vessels existing sensors for targetting data, until the weapon is launched, it is then a "fire and forget" style weapon, utilising it's autonomous IR targetting capability. However most vessels, particularly smaller cheaper ones, lack fire control systems with "mulitple channels of fire" capability. Meaning they lac the ability to control several systems simultaneously.

SeaRam would therefore be better suited to these vessels, as it is completely self contained with it's own targetting system and even complete autonomous operation, should a user require that. It is better suited to smaller vessels as well, due to it's lack of deck penetration/intrusion. It does have a reduced weapons capability however, with only 11 rounds carried.

A vessel with a layered defence system should be able to control it's primary air defence weapon (ie: ESSM) and SeaRam operating simultaneously, along with EW/Decoy systems etc. Such a vessel should be very well protected, against most threats...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
long live usa said:
a good point was brought up why didint the USS cole engage that craft with CIWS or even the fifty cal.that were mounted on deck?
It was a failure in ROE's not a systems failure.
After Cole the USN revisited approach and engagement rules for all vessels negotiating in and out of port facilities. In some cases they will not berth dockside but stand off and are attended to by support vessels.

Basically, any unauthorised vessel approaching is going to be challenged at a series of virtual perimeters - after that they'll get shot at and dealt with at an ultimate level.
 

rossfrb_1

Member
So, given that the aussie navy is familiar with phalanx, why is mistral/tetral (whatever) the touted missile of choice as a possible CIWS for the ANZACs as opposed to RAM/SEARAM? Given that SEARAM is supposed to slot in as a Phalanx replacement. Is it purely a cost thing? I'm assuming RAM (per missile) costs more than Mistral.

rb
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
rossfrb_1 said:
So, given that the aussie navy is familiar with phalanx, why is mistral/tetral (whatever) the touted missile of choice as a possible CIWS for the ANZACs as opposed to RAM/SEARAM? Given that SEARAM is supposed to slot in as a Phalanx replacement. Is it purely a cost thing? I'm assuming RAM (per missile) costs more than Mistral.

rb
Absolutely no idea. Given that we already have Phalanx and could upgrade ours to obtain a SeaRam capability, I have no idea why RAN could possibly favour Mistral.

The 2nd layer SAM system for the ANZAC ASMD seems to have been quietly dropped in recent times anyway. ESSM, combined with CEA-FAR and CEA-MOUNT provides the additional channels of fire that was wanted for the ANZAC's anyway.

Personally I'd rather an additional Mk 41 VLS be fitted to each ANZAC class, and filled with ESSM, giving each vessel 64x ESSM rounds.

The ANZAC's could then be fitted with the rumoured Typhoon 25mm guns for the close-in anti-surface and secondary air defence role and would make the ANZAC frigate, a pretty "sweet deal" overall, considering they will also mount Harpy Block II, MU-90, Seasprite with Penguin ASM's and of course the 127mm gun...
 

Pursuit Curve

New Member
I have also read in a defense industry news letter that a ground based version of Phalanx is being developed to deal with mortar and indirect rocket rounds.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Pursuit Curve said:
I have also read in a defense industry news letter that a ground based version of Phalanx is being developed to deal with mortar and indirect rocket rounds.
ask and ye shall receive... ;) I received this as an OSINT report last year - so its from my archives. I believe that its scraped from a DI article of that date range.

Posted 06/13/05 09:02
Naval Gatling Gun Given Anti-Mortar Role
U.S. Army Eyes Defense Against Iraq Insurgents

By GREG GRANT

The U.S. Army hopes it has found the answer to Iraqi insurgents'
lethal mortar and rocket attacks in its Counter-Rocket Artillery
Mortar system (C-RAM), designed to shred incoming projectiles in a
curtain of lead fired from a huge Gatling gun.

When its radar picks up an incoming round, the C-RAM can set off
strobe lights to alert people to take cover, unleash a blast of 20mm
shells and dispatch an armed unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to kill
whoever fired it.

The C-RAM is built around the Raytheon Phalanx Close-In Weapons System
(CIWS), a radar-guided, multibarrel gun used on U.S. Navy warships to
shoot down incoming missiles.

The system networks a ground-based version of Phalanx with the Army's
Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar and Q-36 Target Acquisition Radar,
which detect incoming rounds and pinpoint their origin. Even before
the projectile lands, the system can feed the firing location to a
Hunter UAV armed with Viper Strike laser- designated munitions.

The first two C-RAM systems arrived in Iraq in mid-May, the product of
an early 2004 demand from Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker. The service
chief of staff demanded some means of protecting U.S. troops on the
sprawling American bases that dot Iraq. These bases have become a
daily target of insurgent mortar and rocket strikes.

Green Zone Ground Zero

The Green Zone in downtown Baghdad, seat of the newly installed Iraqi
government as well as the U.S. embassy and other government and
military installations, is another favorite target of Iraqi indirect
fire attacks. Despite nearly constant U.S. aerial and ground
surveillance of suspected firing points, mortar and rocket attacks
into the Green Zone spike whenever the Iraqi parliament gathers or
news of visiting dignitaries reaches the insurgents.

The indirect fire attacks are not particularly accurate, according to
military intelligence sources in Iraq, but the insurgents know that
any explosive lobbed into the base, crammed with troops and civilian
personnel, is likely to inflict casualties.

C-RAM uses the Phalanx Block 1B system, which uses a forward-looking
infrared sensor to track incoming objects — even very small ones — and
its outgoing shells. Tests since its fielding in 1977 have shown
Phalanx to be effective in shooting down high-speed maneuverable
missiles, unguided rockets and even 155mm heavy artillery rounds.

But a city presents a tougher challenge for radar engineers than the
open ocean, where there are no buildings to clutter the sensor
picture. Raytheon modified the radar system's software package, but
left the Phalanx basically unchanged.

The C-RAM's Phalanxes are loaded with different rounds than the 20mm
depleted-uranium slugs used aboard warships. Army officials decided
that the slugs, fired at a rate of up to 4,500 a minute, were not
appropriate for use in densely populated cities.

So officials went looking for a round that would blow up in midair,
before it could cause accidental death or damage on the street. The
answer was provided by the 1960s-era Vulcan program, an air-defense
system designed to operate directly behind friendly ground forces. The
Vulcan used a 20mm high-explosive round that explodes in midair.

The rounds work not so much like "punching metal, but more like
raining metal," said Col. Rickey Smith of the Army's Futures Center,
which developed and fielded the C-RAM. "It's more like BBs blowing out
there that rip through and shred" the incoming projectiles.

Smith said one of the greatest benefits of C-RAM is its early warning
of indirect fire attack.

When it detects incoming rounds, strobe lights go off and "incoming"
flashes on computer screens, giving people nearby the vital seconds to
get down flat on the ground or to duck into bunkers. He said such
measures have been shown to reduce casualties by 65 percent.

A prototype of the modified Phalanx was tested in December at Yuma
Proving Ground, Ariz., against 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds. Sources
familiar with the tests said the CIWS shot down 78 percent of incoming
projectiles.

In later tests of the system's ability to send targeting data to the
Hunter UAV, the Viper Strike munitions hit all identifiable targets.

Fast Work

Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, saw early tests and
was immediately enthusiastic.

Schoomaker launched the effort in a hurry, going outside the
Pentagon's standard acquisition process to ask the Army Futures Center
to fast track a counter to the insurgents' mortar and rocket attacks.

Smith said they were able to field the first systems barely eleven and
a half months after the original request because of the center's
ability to rapidly integrate off-the-shelf systems and facilitate
their fielding. He said it's a new approach to getting vital
capabilities out to soldiers during wartime.

The Army received two CIWS systems via a March 3 Navy contract with
Raytheon. C-RAM was funded in the 2005 supplemental at $75 million,
with an additional $183 million allocated in the House version of the
2006 Defense Bill.

Smith said additional acquisitions of the system are expected as
coverage is extended to U.S. bases throughout Iraq and, ultimately, to
high-value Iraqi government facilities. •
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
gf0012-aust said:
ask and ye shall receive... ;)
Excellent. What additional purchases are the Australian Government going to announce in the upcoming DCP release??? :lol2
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Aussie Digger said:
Excellent. What additional purchases are the Australian Government going to announce in the upcoming DCP release??? :lol2
Sorry, I didn't quite hear that, I think of got a situational ear infection .... :rolling
 
Top