Modern CIWS systems

[CB90]

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?

Parallax is a thing, for an AK630 type system, or other major caliber gun, but in any modern system, they are accounting for that across the range of the systems when installed. A battery alignment is one of the most basic things done on warships.

For a twin gun system like Kashtan/Kortik, you would have the issue of gun pattern convergence and having to pick a range at which the guns converge (which would obviously be less optimal at other ranges). Or don’t and let them run strictly parallel. This isn’t new either - same problem WW2 fighters with wing mounted guns dealt with.

CIWS essentially removes these problems, but it was probably more about reducing complexity and operating as an independent system - the solutions to these problems are obviously not so chalenging you need to avoid them entirely.

 

[Feanor]

Parallax is a thing, for an AK630 type system, or other major caliber gun, but in any modern system, they are accounting for that across the range of the systems when installed. A battery alignment is one of the most basic things done on warships.

For a twin gun system like Kashtan/Kortik, you would have the issue of gun pattern convergence and having to pick a range at which the guns converge (which would obviously be less optimal at other ranges). Or don’t and let them run strictly parallel. This isn’t new either - same problem WW2 fighters with wing mounted guns dealt with.

CIWS essentially removes these problems, but it was probably more about reducing complexity and operating as an independent system - the solutions to these problems are obviously not so chalenging you need to avoid them entirely.

So on the one hand if a warship was unable to properly align its radars and it's AK-630s that would be a fairly extreme failure of either design (if it's not possible somehow) or of operations if it simply wasn't done?

 

[CB90]

So on the one hand if a warship was unable to properly align its radars and it's AK-630s that would be a fairly extreme failure of either design (if it's not possible somehow) or of operations if it simply wasn't done?

It’s an operations/maintenance type problem and yes that would be serious negligence to not do.

Not doing it would in principle be like not bothering to zero sights/optics on a rifle before taking it into combat.

 

[Feanor]

I appreciate the detailed answers. It's something that had come up in Russian publications in regards to the accuracy of the AK-630s on the 20380 corvettes specifically and I was curious how much credence to give that idea.

 

[Systems Adict]

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 Phalanx 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?

Firstly, can I state I have a rudimental understanding of this subject (accuracy of equipment) & am no expert. However, I can 'agree' (IMHO) that a mount that is separate from its data source (radar information), will be 'less accurate' than one that has its data source directly interfaced with the mount / cannon.

To clarify / explain - the biggest issues will relate to latency (delay / lag), in data sources / operational signals & physical/mechanical lag.

To further explain - As an example, a target is identified on radar & the radar is on top of the mast on a large ship (Frigate or Destroyer).

The information that has been received, has to be decoded & interpreted by the radar system (providing simplistically the target data on course / speed). This is then fed via cables to the command system in the Ops room / CIC. This data can be directed such that once it has been processed by the radar system, a direct data line could go to the processing equipment for the mount/CIWS.

Based on physical location of the x2 pieces of equipment (radar & mount processors), along with the routing of cabling around the ship, that data may have to flow thru up to 300m of cabling, of different diameters, possibly thru plugs & sockets / connectors, possibly even being converted into light & transmitted thru fibre optic cabling. The cabling itself will have an in-built electrical resistance that also has to be overcome (the longer the distance, the higher the resistance & effectively the longer time it will take). The physical electrical resistance (at plug & socket / connectors / 'data convertors' where data is converted into light signals & subsequently decoded & reverted back to electrical) & the distance covered will compound the latency of the data (possibly only by microseconds), but still delays it.

Add to this the additional distance from the processing equipment to the mount, the quality of the materials used / age of the equipment, its inner workings / circuit boards, how well it is maintained etc. there is yet more delay.

Even if we were to eradicate the delay detailed above there's then the mechanical/physical operation of the gun mount & the issues in the drive system, going from zero movement, to getting the equipment drive motors to move in both horizontal & vertical planes, then stopping the drive at the correct position, noting that we're trying to track a constantly moving target, so the position is constantly moving/changing.

Then there's other key source data that's needed - feeds from the ships gyro system, (providing course / heading, speed over the ground, pitch & roll), air temperature, barometric air pressure & yet again any latency in that data source / distance from this equipment to the mount processing equipment.

When mounts (such as Phalanx or Goalkeeper) were introduced, the manufacturers were probably aware of this issue & it is therefore part of the methodology in their design, to reduce the latency in the data, by having the systems designed as 'stand-alone', so they have their own gyro compass, their own radar & their own processors, thus cutting out a lot of the issues due to distance / electrical resistance.

As technology has advanced over the last 30 years, we've moved away from analogue systems, into digital, so that issues with electric motor drives can be significantly reduced by the control equipment. Better software, designed to have the drive motors 'in flux' (i.e they are effectively vibrating (back & forth)), so that the peak load needed to get the electrical motor to move against gravity / natural resistance is 'reduced'. The physical design of the drive motors themselves will also have been reviewed, with the lightest (weight), least resistant materials that can be used in motor bearings, etc. This helps the drives turn more easily & therefore quicker. The processing of the data will also have benefitted from the technological advances in computing (hardware & software), which will also provides benefits.

On Naval equipment / systems that I've worked on that have utilised 'segregated' equipment (Noting NOT CIWS, but standard Naval guns, with stand alone processing systems), that while the target / incoming missile is at greatest range from the ship, the accuracy will be lower, due to the transmission time of the radar returns to & from the target, but at distances below 10kms, there would effectively be minimal difference, as the track data calculations & the intelligence of the processing software can 'predict' the missile/targets expected trajectory & can compensate for it, assuming that the system has been provided with enough time (i.e. - If a system is tracking a target from 60Km, it will be more accurate than if it only picks up the missile at 15Kms from the ship).

SA

 

[CB90]

Firstly, can I state I have a rudimental understanding of this subject (accuracy of equipment) & am no expert. However, I can 'agree' (IMHO) that a mount that is separate from its data source (radar information), will be 'less accurate' than one that has its data source directly interfaced with the mount / cannon.

To clarify / explain - the biggest issues will relate to latency (delay / lag), in data sources / operational signals & physical/mechanical lag.

To further explain - As an example, a target is identified on radar & the radar is on top of the mast on a large ship (Frigate or Destroyer).

The information that has been received, has to be decoded & interpreted by the radar system (providing simplistically the target data on course / speed). This is then fed via cables to the command system in the Ops room / CIC. This data can be directed such that once it has been processed by the radar system, a direct data line could go to the processing equipment for the mount/CIWS.

Based on physical location of the x2 pieces of equipment (radar & mount processors), along with the routing of cabling around the ship, that data may have to flow thru up to 300m of cabling, of different diameters, possibly thru plugs & sockets / connectors, possibly even being converted into light & transmitted thru fibre optic cabling. The cabling itself will have an in-built electrical resistance that also has to be overcome (the longer the distance, the higher the resistance & effectively the longer time it will take). The physical electrical resistance (at plug & socket / connectors / 'data convertors' where data is converted into light signals & subsequently decoded & reverted back to electrical) & the distance covered will compound the latency of the data (possibly only by microseconds), but still delays it.

Add to this the additional distance from the processing equipment to the mount, the quality of the materials used / age of the equipment, its inner workings / circuit boards, how well it is maintained etc. there is yet more delay.

Even if we were to eradicate the delay detailed above there's then the mechanical/physical operation of the gun mount & the issues in the drive system, going from zero movement, to getting the equipment drive motors to move in both horizontal & vertical planes, then stopping the drive at the correct position, noting that we're trying to track a constantly moving target, so the position is constantly moving/changing.

Then there's other key source data that's needed - feeds from the ships gyro system, (providing course / heading, speed over the ground, pitch & roll), air temperature, barometric air pressure & yet again any latency in that data source / distance from this equipment to the mount processing equipment.

When mounts (such as Phalanx or Goalkeeper) were introduced, the manufacturers were probably aware of this issue & it is therefore part of the methodology in their design, to reduce the latency in the data, by having the systems designed as 'stand-alone', so they have their own gyro compass, their own radar & their own processors, thus cutting out a lot of the issues due to distance / electrical resistance.

As technology has advanced over the last 30 years, we've moved away from analogue systems, into digital, so that issues with electric motor drives can be significantly reduced by the control equipment. Better software, designed to have the drive motors 'in flux' (i.e they are effectively vibrating (back & forth)), so that the peak load needed to get the electrical motor to move against gravity / natural resistance is 'reduced'. The physical design of the drive motors themselves will also have been reviewed, with the lightest (weight), least resistant materials that can be used in motor bearings, etc. This helps the drives turn more easily & therefore quicker. The processing of the data will also have benefitted from the technological advances in computing (hardware & software), which will also provides benefits.

On Naval equipment / systems that I've worked on that have utilised 'segregated' equipment (Noting NOT CIWS, but standard Naval guns, with stand alone processing systems), that while the target / incoming missile is at greatest range from the ship, the accuracy will be lower, due to the transmission time of the radar returns to & from the target, but at distances below 10kms, there would effectively be minimal difference, as the track data calculations & the intelligence of the processing software can 'predict' the missile/targets expected trajectory & can compensate for it, assuming that the system has been provided with enough time (i.e. - If a system is tracking a target from 60Km, it will be more accurate than if it only picks up the missile at 15Kms from the ship).

SA

Good addition with data latency. From an operational perspective, it's obviously normally transparent to the user as that gets accounted for between the design to whatever the tested/graded performance will be.

It does have an unexpected impact with newer systems - with some systems running virtualized on modern hardware, or being designed for copper and now running on fiber, I know some programs have actually had to build in timing delays for legacy programs running on modernized hardware to correct to the original designed delay.

I would disagree slightly with the transmission time of the radar returns having a measurable impact though. The difference in the time it takes for RF energy to travel 1mile vs 30 miles is insignificant compared to factors like the gun's inherent accuracy or radar resolution limitations.

 

[JohnJT]

There's an interesting new CIWS fitted to the Italian Thaon di Revel class. It's the new 76/62 Sovraponte (over deck) version of the OTO Melara 76mm gun. The system is around 30-40% lighter than the standard Super Rapid and its installation requires no deck penetration. The mount houses 76 ready-to-fire rounds in two 38 round feeds and has the STRALES system incorporated to allow engagement of aerial targets (including ASMs) with DART guided ammunition.

This gun is interesting because the weight reduction from the already light 76mm super rapid and no deck penetration potentially brings it into competition with current CIWS and 40mm gun mounts, but with the power of the 76mm with all it's various ammo types (DART, PFF, SAPOMER, VULCANO, etc.). There are a lot of OPVs currently with 30-40mm main guns that could potentially get a massive firepower upgrade with such a system.

Inner Layer Defence Systems New Developments Against Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles and Asymmetric Threats - European Security & Defence

In recent decades, navies worldwide and the global defence industry have started to tackle the new airborne, missile and surface threats. The latter has influenced the development of multi-layered defence concepts for naval forces. The emergence of new supersonic, high-diving and highly...

euro-sd.com

E' operativo il 76/62 SOVRAPONTE di Leonardo

svppbellum.blogspot.com

 

[swerve]

I would disagree slightly with the transmission time of the radar returns having a measurable impact though. The difference in the time it takes for RF energy to travel 1mile vs 30 miles is insignificant compared to factors like the gun's inherent accuracy or radar resolution limitations.

Yeah. Speed of light is 300,000 km per second. Call 30 miles 45 km. Round trip is 90 km. That's about 0.0003 seconds - 0.3 milliseconds. A missile will still be in exactly the same place, as far as targeting it is concerned, as when the radiation that's bounced off it left the radar antenna. The travel time & accuracy of any projectile aimed at it will swamp its tiny movement in calculating aim.

 

[John Fedup]

There's an interesting new CIWS fitted to the Italian Thaon di Revel class. It's the new 76/62 Sovraponte (over deck) version of the OTO Melara 76mm gun. The system is around 30-40% lighter than the standard Super Rapid and its installation requires no deck penetration. The mount houses 76 ready-to-fire rounds in two 38 round feeds and has the STRALES system incorporated to allow engagement of aerial targets (including ASMs) with DART guided ammunition.

This gun is interesting because the weight reduction from the already light 76mm super rapid and no deck penetration potentially brings it into competition with current CIWS and 40mm gun mounts, but with the power of the 76mm with all it's various ammo types (DART, PFF, SAPOMER, VULCANO, etc.). There are a lot of OPVs currently with 30-40mm main guns that could potentially get a massive firepower upgrade with such a system.

Inner Layer Defence Systems New Developments Against Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles and Asymmetric Threats - European Security & Defence

In recent decades, navies worldwide and the global defence industry have started to tackle the new airborne, missile and surface threats. The latter has influenced the development of multi-layered defence concepts for naval forces. The emergence of new supersonic, high-diving and highly...

euro-sd.com

E' operativo il 76/62 SOVRAPONTE di Leonardo

svppbellum.blogspot.com

Might be a good upgrade for our DeWolf class should the Arctic geopolitical situation deteriorate.

 

[Ananda]

Year old video on installation by PAL of Rheinmetall Milenium gun CIWS. I put it in here, since seems not much picture on this latest Rheinmetall CIWS. Indonesia uses this gun both on TNI-AL new light Frigates and TNI-AU mobile CIWS system for AB point defence need.

The other video is from Rheinmetall site on the land based version similar with that being used by TNI-AU on AB defense. TNI-AU put it on mobile transporters, which then can be move around between land site possition. Shown it's relative light weight.

This's from one of Indonesian Military Blogs video. Shown pictures of the gun during Indodefence and when it's arriving and operational with TNI-AU.

 

[John Fedup]

Millennium with AHEAD ammo, would have been my choice for CIWS on our CSC ships for the RCN.

 

[Systems Adict]

Millennium with AHEAD ammo, would have been my choice for CIWS on our CSC ships for the RCN.

Can I ask an obvious question (seeing as I don't know the answer / don't want to trouble Google, as I'll end up with 30+ pages of data to trawl thru).

Does the Canadian Navy already have something like General Dynamics / Raytheon Phalanx CIWS in their current Fleet Inventory ?

If this is the case, do they have 'spare mounts' or is there a 'set' or two that they move from ship to ship, dependant on the operational tasking of the fleet (similar to the UK RN) ?

From a FLEET perspective, IF your navy has a particular weapon system that is still being manufactured / maintained / has a good availability of spares from the OEM & is envisaged as being an integral part of your navies technology for the next 15 -20 years, is it really needed to replace it with something 'new' or 'different' ?

From a taxpayers point of view - the govt has already spent 'X' on the equipment & 'Y' on the fleet support / staff training / logistics & spares for a 'fixed period', so why wash these funds down the drain & spend 'Z' millions more on a new system?

I appreciate that the reasoning above is often why navies keep equipment that is a little older, but from a financial sense for the country, it is logical & explains why 'NEW' equipment generally only comes into a fleet once in a generation (i.e. when a new class of vessel is manufactured, as that is the best time to do so).

I also don't dispute that that the Millennium gun system would be useful, but would still suggest that is the better system at the moment is Phalanx, due to being 'tried & tested' in battle.

SA

 

[Todjaeger]

Can I ask an obvious question (seeing as I don't know the answer / don't want to trouble Google, as I'll end up with 30+ pages of data to trawl thru).

Does the Canadian Navy already have something like General Dynamics / Raytheon Phalanx CIWS in their current Fleet Inventory ?

If this is the case, do they have 'spare mounts' or is there a 'set' or two that they move from ship to ship, dependant on the operational tasking of the fleet (similar to the UK RN) ?

From a FLEET perspective, IF your navy has a particular weapon system that is still being manufactured / maintained / has a good availability of spares from the OEM & is envisaged as being an integral part of your navies technology for the next 15 -20 years, is it really needed to replace it with something 'new' or 'different' ?

From a taxpayers point of view - the govt has already spent 'X' on the equipment & 'Y' on the fleet support / staff training / logistics & spares for a 'fixed period', so why wash these funds down the drain & spend 'Z' millions more on a new system?

I appreciate that the reasoning above is often why navies keep equipment that is a little older, but from a financial sense for the country, it is logical & explains why 'NEW' equipment generally only comes into a fleet once in a generation (i.e. when a new class of vessel is manufactured, as that is the best time to do so).

I also don't dispute that that the Millennium gun system would be useful, but would still suggest that is the better system at the moment is Phalanx, due to being 'tried & tested' in battle.

SA

The Halifax-class frigates are (or were) kitted out with the Mk 15 Phalanx 20 mm CIWS. No idea though on whether they were operated as a pool of CIWS guns, or if each was permanently mounted to a frigate. It does appear that the upcoming Protecteur-class JSS will each be able to fit two CIWS, but otherwise is looks as though the RCN has otherwise moved beyond the Phalanx. Not too surprising given the age of the system and how threats have emerged which Phalanx now seems unsuited to handle.

 

[John Fedup]

AFAIK each Halifax frigate has a Phalanx gun. Although there may be a economic and support reasons for retaining these guns, newer solutions seem to be a prudent upgrade for the CSC.

 

[Todjaeger]

AFAIK each Halifax frigate has a Phalanx gun. Although there may be a economic and support reasons for retaining these guns, newer solutions seem to be a prudent upgrade for the CSC.

The CSC is to be fitted with a pair of stabilized BAE 30 mm rapid fire naval guns according to the RCN's CSC factsheet found here. I suspect these guns are in place of the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, though TBH I do not know whether or not the 30 mm guns have a secondary role as a CIWS or AAA capability.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Recent photo of HMCS Regina showing the amazing dazzle paint scheme but more importantly the CIWS on the top stbd of the hangar. All Halifax Class have Phalanx CIWS 1B.

As for CSC CIWS there won't be a gun CIWS. The CSC Close In Air Defence (CIAD) requirement led to the selection of the Sea Ceptor missile system from MBDA.

I don't know how capable the 30mm would be for anything faster than a large UAS or helicopter. The best information I could find was with the UK's Automated Small Calibre Gun which they will fit on their Type 26. Assuming CSC uses the same system then it's going to be ok for UAS and other slow flyers. But for killing small boat this would be great as that's really what it's designed for.

 

[Inverno]

Article on a new, rather conventional looking Gatling type chinese CIWS over at The Drive. Not too much information available yet.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Article on a new, rather conventional looking Gatling type chinese CIWS over at The Drive. Not too much information available yet.

20 barrels! That's one way to increase the time between barrel inspections!

 

[spoz]

The CSC is to be fitted with a pair of stabilized BAE 30 mm rapid fire naval guns according to the RCN's CSC factsheet found here. I suspect these guns are in place of the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, though TBH I do not know whether or not the 30 mm guns have a secondary role as a CIWS or AAA capability.

On the Australian and British versions, the 30 mms, on the after quarters of the hangar, are in addition to the Phalanx which are mounted on either beam. Not sure about the CSC, but may well be the same.

 

[Git_Kraken]

On the Australian and British versions, the 30 mms, on the after quarters of the hangar, are in addition to the Phalanx which are mounted on either beam. Not sure about the CSC, but may well be the same.

No Phalanx on CSC. Just Sea Ceptor. Naval News covered the reasoning in this article. Below is the pertinent quote from that article.

Contacted by Naval News, an MBDA source shed some light on how the Sea Ceptor was selected in addition to the ESSM. The two missiles were not competing against each other. Raytheon’s ESSM was selected to provide “point defense”. Instead, MBDA pitched its missile for the RCN’s close in weapons system (CIWS) requirement. The Sea Ceptor beat out systems usually used in that role such as the RAM, SeaRam or Phalanx. The final Sea Ceptor configuration aboard the CSC still needs finalized and confirmed but it will likely be 24x missiles launched from Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launching System (ExLS) located amidship.

There are plenty of advantages in taking a VLS missile option over a gun option for close-in air defence. You can engage multiple targets simultaneously, you can engage further away from the ship, when you do get a kill the ship isn't splashed with leftover missile fragments, you can engage missiles coming from multiple directions, and no reload downtime between engagements. Sea Ceptor can engage as close a 1NM away from the ship due to its interesting rollover manoeuvre on launch.

With a 30mm on the quarters, the CIWS Phalanx isn't needed for surface fire anymore either. So Canada decided that missiles were the best way to keep the ship alive. It's a unique solution for sure.