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
Modern CIWS systems
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
/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
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/WNSweden_57-70_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?
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:
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
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
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
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
that is my opinion of what it would cost and still make 100% profit marginAre this civil prices?
If yes double the price at minimum.
We are talking of military purchases.
, so "yes", thats a civilian price.cheers
w
Ah.
I think especially naval equipment tends to be really, really expensive compared to its civil counterparts.
For example I recently have read that the power outlets on our ship cost ten times more than a normal power outlet due to the special requirements (And dumb purchase decisions done by bueraucratic MoDs )
I think especially naval equipment tends to be really, really expensive compared to its civil counterparts.
For example I recently have read that the power outlets on our ship cost ten times more than a normal power outlet due to the special requirements (And dumb purchase decisions done by bueraucratic MoDs
)I should have been paying more attention to what I wrote.
Offcourse I didn't want to claim that the Bofors 57mm is a CIWS. What I meant was that it could be used as an anti ship missile gun in a close range. I fact that is what Bofors here in Sweden claims. The Swedish navy have used the 57mm for a realy long time and we don't have any CIWS as such on our corvetts. We don't have any large ships in fact. My point is that the Swedish navy, out of either necesity and/or preference use the 57mm gun for surface and airborne threats. Offcourse this "airborne threat" doesn't imply how good it is vs missile. But that is what the Swedish navy is stuck with and I dont belive that they would be inefficient about it. So Tasman, now you know that Sweden does use it for CIWS'ish stuff. As other ppl mentioned above, the 57mm can put out a big pellets carpet hard for anything to pass through unhurt. If up until now (which I find to be very unlikly) no one have developed a suitabel mechanical gear to alow a 57mm to track a manouvering incoming missile, there is nothing saying it couldn't be developed. I personaly belive that the 57mm is better than the 76mm at defeating missiles which is why USN choose it for the LCS.
/Dan
Thanks for the info z1pp0. The Swedish navy is not the only one that has to make do with what it has for 'CIWS'ish stuff'. Some RAN frigates have no CIWS to back up their Sea Sparrow SAMs and the fall back (apart from relying on decoys) is the 0.50 MG! These vessels though will be re-equipped with ESSM (which may mean a CIWS is unnecessary) and perhaps a VSRADS such as RAM, though as I mentioned earlier, this is not yet authorized. Smaller RAN vessels such as patrol boats and mine warfare vessels rely on guns like the 25mm and 30mm for dealing with air threats. Army RB70 SAM detachments are sometimes deployed to do or at least supplement the 'CIWS'ish stuff' on support and amphibious ships. The 57mm would stand up well compared with some of these weapons and I would love to see it deployed on RAN patrol boats.I should have been paying more attention to what I wrote.
I'm sure it could.
I think the USN would be relying on other systems (including the LCS's own decoys and RAM) to defeat missiles attacking an LCS but it would certainly be deployed as part of a layered defence and, with the right ammunition, might be able to bring down an attacking aircraft or missile before it gets too close. I don't see the LCS operating in isolation from other USN assets. BTW I think the 57mm should prove a good general purpose weapon on these vessels.
Cheers
Last edited:
Apart from the fact it is a 4 barrelled 25mm CIWS I don't know much about the Sea Zenith. Turk, are you, or any other members for that matter, able to tell us how well it has it performed in service with the Turkish Navy? Also, has it been adopted by any other navy?We have got Sea Zenith
Cheers
Actually Sea Zenith is only using by Turkish Navy.And our officers always said that when they are in the exercises and during this exercises sea zenith trials they always succeeded Sea Zenith. I have got some sources but they are Turkish so as soon as possible I will share with everybody.
Found a pic of sea zenith here: http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/20930/date/1170399100
Noticed the markings?
Would be very interesting to know how it performs.
Noticed the markings?
Would be very interesting to know how it performs.