Modern CIWS systems

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
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.
Which is great until you exhaust your Sea Ceptor magazine. Then you have to rely on ESSM Blk II and once you exhaust that magazine you are buggered. At least with a cannon CIWS you can store a significant amount of ammunition for it. The 20mm Phalanx is obsolete now, so you need something larger with longer range because you are looking at supersonic AShM now.
 

Git_Kraken

Active Member
Which is great until you exhaust your Sea Ceptor magazine. Then you have to rely on ESSM Blk II and once you exhaust that magazine you are buggered. At least with a cannon CIWS you can store a significant amount of ammunition for it. The 20mm Phalanx is obsolete now, so you need something larger with longer range because you are looking at supersonic AShM now.
Honestly, if I'm exhausting 32 ESSM II (quad pack in 8 launchers) and then 24 Sea Ceptor missiles (quad packed in 6 launchers) I'm pretty sure no level of effort with a gun is going to save the ship. Assuming a probability of kill 50% per missile fired in defense that means the enemy has fired somewhere around 28 missiles at my ship.
 

JohnJT

Active Member
Honestly, if I'm exhausting 32 ESSM II (quad pack in 8 launchers) and then 24 Sea Ceptor missiles (quad packed in 6 launchers) I'm pretty sure no level of effort with a gun is going to save the ship. Assuming a probability of kill 50% per missile fired in defense that means the enemy has fired somewhere around 28 missiles at my ship.
Missiles and guns aren't the only defence against ASMs. Everyone always ignores soft kill systems such as EW and decoys. In an age of advanced hypersonic anti-ship weapons, soft kill system are more effective than hard kill systems and are the real future of ship defence.
 
Last edited:

Milne Bay

Active Member
Honestly, if I'm exhausting 32 ESSM II (quad pack in 8 launchers) and then 24 Sea Ceptor missiles (quad packed in 6 launchers) I'm pretty sure no level of effort with a gun is going to save the ship. Assuming a probability of kill 50% per missile fired in defense that means the enemy has fired somewhere around 28 missiles at my ship.
Most ships packing air defence missiles are not only defending themselves but also are a part of the protective screen for other ships - LHD's, Supply ships Oilers etc. which are not air-defence equipped.
Those 28 missiles will not necessarily all be aimed at one target, and will still need to be dealt with.
The problem of multiple attacks has also to be addressed, since the air-defence ships do not have the ability to re-supply and re-load their missile tubes at sea.
MB
 

Git_Kraken

Active Member
Most ships packing air defence missiles are not only defending themselves but also are a part of the protective screen for other ships - LHD's, Supply ships Oilers etc. which are not air-defence equipped.
Those 28 missiles will not necessarily all be aimed at one target, and will still need to be dealt with.
The problem of multiple attacks has also to be addressed, since the air-defence ships do not have the ability to re-supply and re-load their missile tubes at sea.
MB
This is true. SM/Aster family of missiles are best for area air defence (which is why all those AAW destroyers pack those types). ESSM/Sea Ceptor are point defence, and if the attack is coming in on your "point" of the compass you could defend your high-value units (HVU) with those weapons as if they were attacking you.

As for multiple attacks, if the combat zone is so hot that you use all your missiles and your consorts can't defend you anymore because they used all their own ammo.... well that just is a bad day.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
This is true. SM/Aster family of missiles are best for area air defence (which is why all those AAW destroyers pack those types). ESSM/Sea Ceptor are point defence, and if the attack is coming in on your "point" of the compass you could defend your high-value units (HVU) with those weapons as if they were attacking you.

As for multiple attacks, if the combat zone is so hot that you use all your missiles and your consorts can't defend you anymore because they used all their own ammo.... well that just is a bad day.
Yes and no on ESSM. The flexibility of missile depends as much on the combat system and sensors as the missile itself. As a case in point; the CEAFAR and SAAB 9LV set up on the the ANZAC frigates can handle crossing missiles headed for other ships (this was tested with Coyote supersonic targets). Certainly a few more missiles would be helpful where the system has that capability.

ESSM2 will add to that capability and the combination of long and medium range missiles on the Hunters, with the ability to engage multiple targets ,will be even better. In the case of the ANZAC's, they are limited to just 32 rounds of ESSM (and the Block II when it becomes available) but they can defend other units. With a DDG's and two ANZAC's defending a HVU there are still going to be a good number of rounds available .... if that is not enough them we would be engaged a very serious conflict.

This all being said, I would prefer SeaRAM in lieu of Phalanx ..... particularly for the HVU's. But that is just my opinion.
 

Toptob

Active Member
There seems to be a bit of a hole in the CIWS capabilities of Western navies at the moment. Where the old gold standard systems are being phased out and a "silver bullet" kind of replacement has yet to appear. And it's difficult because the evolution of ordnance they're supposed to counter and the difficulties and costs associated with performing effective and realistic tests. So I find it hard to put too much stake in claims about hit rates and things like that.

What I do know is that both the Dutch and Korean navies are looking at replacements for the 30mm Goalkeeper with all manner of combinations of caliber's and missiles being considered. I also know that the Italian navy likes 76mm for close in defense and the Russians just put bunch of missiles and cannon together on a turret. Whether any of these solutions (or none of them) will prove suitable to counter future hypersonic or ballistic ASM's... we'll see (or not, hopefully). But there are some points I have with regards to the discussion above.

First, close in defense having it's own sensors seems like a plus to me. Nothing bad about having some more sensors on your ship, not only do they provide redundancy and relieve other sensors of those taskings. They're also just extra sensors in and of themselves, optical sensors and radars can be used secondarily for surveillance tasks etc. So having independent CIWS with it's own sensors seems like a plus to me.

Second, what the above discussion seems to disregard is that naval ships are at a certain place and time for a reason. It's pretty rare (except maybe for testing) that the reason is to sail out shoot down some missiles and empty it's magazines and sail on. Naval ships have missions, whether it's escorting or patrolling, usually they're going pretty far from their bases. So the assumption that situations where you need more than x amount of missiles are rare so lets not arm and prepare ourselves for that, are decisions that bean counters take weighing the lives of sailors against a budget. But realistically speaking more is better!

Maybe countering 30 or 40 missiles in an engagement seems like a rare occasion. But modern naval warfare (theory) is missile centric and who ever said that during your mission you'll only have one engagement? One commenter above mentioned that the 20mm cannon on a Phalanx is easy to reload. At the same time it's very difficult, if not impossible, to reload a VLS at sea. So if you fire 20 of your 36 ESSM in one engagement you only have 16 left for all the engagements you encounter until you resupply.

At some point it becomes not only a question of capability, but also of staying power.
 

Delta204

Active Member
Which is great until you exhaust your Sea Ceptor magazine. Then you have to rely on ESSM Blk II and once you exhaust that magazine you are buggered. At least with a cannon CIWS you can store a significant amount of ammunition for it. The 20mm Phalanx is obsolete now, so you need something larger with longer range because you are looking at supersonic AShM now.
If we're using the upcoming Canadian version of the Type 26 as an example I think you've got it reversed. The CSC will leverage it's radar to detect modern ASM at a greater distance and use ESSM for out to the horizon or just beyond range engagements... Sea Ceptor / soft kill will likely be left for whatever makes it through. The OTO 5" could also fill in I suppose but soft kill is probably more effective as already pointed out. Carrying missiles like ESSM (or the extended range Sea Ceptor) in large numbers will be crucial in a future near-peer conflict...which is why I desperately wish the CSC would increase it's mk41 cell capacity. Theoretically, even with a 32 cell mk41 the CSC could sail with 16xSM-2/6; 64 ESSM & 24 Sea Ceptor... in a task force configuration this would be over 400 SAM's (this is provided we even buy this many missiles)

I have to think any type of direct fire CIWS has to be limited in it's effectiveness against modern ASM (although the Italian version does look impressive); I do think they are excellent for dealing with lower end threats like drones / FIAC / less modern short range ASM etc. This is likely why you see different navies mixing and matching depending on what threats they face or plan to face along with their budgets restraints etc. I do think it's telling that the USN doesn't seem to be interested in developing a modern direct fire CIWS tasked with defending against modern missiles.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If we're using the upcoming Canadian version of the Type 26 as an example I think you've got it reversed. The CSC will leverage it's radar to detect modern ASM at a greater distance and use ESSM for out to the horizon or just beyond range engagements... Sea Ceptor / soft kill will likely be left for whatever makes it through. The OTO 5" could also fill in I suppose but soft kill is probably more effective as already pointed out. Carrying missiles like ESSM (or the extended range Sea Ceptor) in large numbers will be crucial in a future near-peer conflict...which is why I desperately wish the CSC would increase it's mk41 cell capacity. Theoretically, even with a 32 cell mk41 the CSC could sail with 16xSM-2/6; 64 ESSM & 24 Sea Ceptor... in a task force configuration this would be over 400 SAM's (this is provided we even buy this many missiles)

I have to think any type of direct fire CIWS has to be limited in it's effectiveness against modern ASM (although the Italian version does look impressive); I do think they are excellent for dealing with lower end threats like drones / FIAC / less modern short range ASM etc. This is likely why you see different navies mixing and matching depending on what threats they face or plan to face along with their budgets restraints etc. I do think it's telling that the USN doesn't seem to be interested in developing a modern direct fire CIWS tasked with defending against modern missiles.
I used to do some natural hazards stuff in my previous work and we always worked from the worst set of environmental circumstances because that was what we were required to plan for. Living in a country that is a geologists dream, regularly presenting just about every natural hazard possible, we have a lot to choose from. I would argue that the same applies when you are designing shipboard defence, especially combat vessels. In the last 20 years AShM capabilities have advanced rapidly with more capable ones available.

There is also something that I read recently stating that we grow comfortable with what is familiar and grow resistant to the urge for change. I will have to look that reference up because it is a military one.

I would argue that the USN has grown overly comfortable and over confident with the Phalanx CIWS and because it hasn't faced a modern AShM in combat it really sees no reason to upgrade the calibre. It has also spent nigh on 20 years fighting a landbased war and it has neglected its core roles because of that. Now it has to reorientate towards a peer competitor who is fielding new ships, weapons, and sensors. Its other problem is Congress and that is something that they will have to sort out as well.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
has grown overly comfortable and over confident with the Phalanx CIWS
And with Ram/Sea Ram. Another factor is that unlike other navies with smaller calibre guns with a higher ROF capable of firing ammo like 3P; the USN mostly relies on 127mm main guns which are very useful for various things but less so for engaging a fast moving small object coming n at high speed at at low altitude.

because it hasn't faced a modern AShM in combat
This would apply to everyone else also wouldn't it? I can't think of an example where anyone has actually had to deal with an actual supersonic sea skimmer in a real life situation. A USN ship fired ESSM at incoming ASMs in 2016 off Yemen but they were older gen subsonic ones. Not easy to do but a nightmare scenario would be an opponent being able to coordinate a simultaneous attack on a naval task group using air, sea and land launched ASMS from different directions backed by heavy jamming.
 

Git_Kraken

Active Member
And with Ram/Sea Ram. Another factor is that unlike other navies with smaller calibre guns with a higher ROF capable of firing ammo like 3P; the USN mostly relies on 127mm main guns which are very useful for various things but less so for engaging a fast moving small object coming n at high speed at at low altitude.
127mm with Hyper Velocity projectiles are being considered for missile defense because of their rapid time to intercept and ability to maneuver. Not sure how effective that would be, given skin-on-skin contact would likely be required unless they are making HVP's with explosive heads now.

This would apply to everyone else also wouldn't it? I can't think of an example where anyone has actually had to deal with an actual supersonic sea skimmer in a real life situation. A USN ship fired ESSM at incoming ASMs in 2016 off Yemen but they were older gen subsonic ones. Not easy to do but a nightmare scenario would be an opponent being able to coordinate a simultaneous attack on a naval task group using air, sea and land launched ASMS from different directions backed by heavy jamming.
Navies do train with supersonic UAV's that attack ships to test systems. But getting close enough or having the correct course to have a CIWS engage doesn't strike me as the safest thing. There was an Israeli ship recently hit with a missile but that was a civilian ship.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Navies do train with supersonic UAV's that attack ships to test systems
If I remember correctly there was some news years ago about the USN acquiring some Moskits for testing purposes.

There was an Israeli ship recently hit with a missile but that was a civilian ship.
Not including the Falklands,
Iran/Iraq war, Arab/Israeli wars, Russia/Georgia war and Iran/U.S. skirmishes; there are probably a dozen instances of ships (naval and civilian) being hit by ASMs (all non supersonic).

Apart from the Iraqi Silkworm being successfully engaged by Sea Dart in the Gulf War and USN ESSMs engaging Chinese made ASMs off Yemen; I can’t think of any other instances of ASMs being successfully engaged.

Ultimately; as you’re aware it’s not just about the hardware but also how much warning time th targeted ship gets and how effectively all the sensors and weapons can work together. I would imagine that one major advantage the USN would have over many other navies when it comes to engaging incoming ASMs is CEC.
 
Last edited:

Delta204

Active Member
Northrop Grumman to Produce Additional Target Vehicles for US Navy | Northrop Grumman

According to this article, the USN has now ordered over 200 of the Coyote target missiles over the years which are capable of Mach 2.5 @ ~15 feet above sea level... I understand it's not combat, but I doubt there is a navy with more reps against supersonic sea skimming missiles. They also probably have a good idea how Phalanx performs against these targets. ESSM is probably ideal, allowing ships with powerful radars to intercept in the 20-50 km range. Inside of that its probably SeaRAM>soft kill>......direct fire CIWS.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Northrop Grumman to Produce Additional Target Vehicles for US Navy | Northrop Grumman

According to this article, the USN has now ordered over 200 of the Coyote target missiles over the years which are capable of Mach 2.5 @ ~15 feet above sea level... I understand it's not combat, but I doubt there is a navy with more reps against supersonic sea skimming missiles. They also probably have a good idea how Phalanx performs against these targets. ESSM is probably ideal, allowing ships with powerful radars to intercept in the 20-50 km range. Inside of that its probably SeaRAM>soft kill>......direct fire CIWS.
This is a very nuanced piece but it is a useful insight into how weapon and system integration is essential in defeating such targets. A point to note, the CEAFAR system used in this test was not the definitive version

Navy Matters: Australian ESSM Test (navy-matters.blogspot.com)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hanwa and LIG NEX 1 are designing and building competing CIWS built around the GAU-8 30mm gatling gun for the ROKN. Both will have an AESA radar and an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS).


These will be interesting and if they come to fruition with offer a viable alternative to what's available now.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Hanwa and LIG NEX 1 are designing and building competing CIWS built around the GAU-8 30mm gatling gun for the ROKN. Both will have an AESA radar and an electro-optical targeting system (EOTS).


These will be interesting and if they come to fruition with offer a viable alternative to what's available now.
Remarkable development.
In the Royal Netherlands Navy thread it was told that the HSA Goalkeeper will not be produced anymore and all replaced by foreign CIWS-systems, because the GAU-8 is not anymore in production. But now South-Korea comes with a brand-new GAU-8 based CIWS.
 

walter

Active Member
Well,to be fair it's more like a Goalkeeper 2.0 ;), but remarkeble never the less.

Don't know why the Dutch navy wants to "ditch"the last resort canon based CIWS(the more defence layers,the better)
 

Git_Kraken

Active Member
The Dutch may be shifting to a missile-based CIWS as the Germans have done. As discussed earlier there are plenty of disadvantages to gun-based CIWS. This one looks so shiny and cool though.

That radar/EOIR sensor package seems to be the big leap forward here. Married to a SeaRAM, DEW, or similar it could be a very nice inclusion on a ship that doesn't want/.isn't able to integrate its own sensors to the CIWS.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Dutch may be shifting to a missile-based CIWS as the Germans have done. As discussed earlier there are plenty of disadvantages to gun-based CIWS. This one looks so shiny and cool though.

That radar/EOIR sensor package seems to be the big leap forward here. Married to a SeaRAM, DEW, or similar it could be a very nice inclusion on a ship that doesn't want/.isn't able to integrate its own sensors to the CIWS.
I would disagree that there are many disadvantages to a GAU-8 30MM gun based CIWS, especially this system. Phalanx yes, but not this. It's reloadable at sea, what missile based system can claim that? Once you've shot your load that's it.
 
Top