Modern CIWS systems
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
Mauser Drakon and Oerlikon Myriad. Died. both. About 15 years ago, when neither was procured.
Both companies were bought by Rheinmetall, which deleted both from their product lists several years ago. Some development work from Drakon went into the MLG-27 remote-controlled gun mount.
Rheinmetall also straightened out the plethora of Oerlikon guns somewhat, they're only selling the 20mm KAA and the 25mm KBA really anymore out of all those guns Oerlikon made. The 25mm KBB (different ammunition than the KBA) used in the Sea Zenith for example isn't officially on sale anymore (i'd guess Turkey has a license to build them though).
...Having seen a 57mm in AA mode in action(20 round Burst), it's acceptable to say that it COULD be used as a CIWS. 
However it does all come down to the quality of the tracking & combat system the gun is integrated with and the operator actually picking up the missile on it's inbound track.
Seeing a 6ft long, 8 - 10 inch wide tube "Missile", travelling at 500Kts. while being used as a towed target, then obliterated somewhere between 3Km & 1Km is proof enough for me !
Systems Adict
However it does all come down to the quality of the tracking & combat system the gun is integrated with and the operator actually picking up the missile on it's inbound track.
Seeing a 6ft long, 8 - 10 inch wide tube "Missile", travelling at 500Kts. while being used as a towed target, then obliterated somewhere between 3Km & 1Km is proof enough for me !
Systems Adict
The Russians will probably puke blood when they see this. Is there anything the Chinese military won't copy off of?
Presumably using 3P ammunition?...Having seen a 57mm in AA mode in action(20 round Burst), it's acceptable to say that it COULD be used as a CIWS.
However it does all come down to the quality of the tracking & combat system the gun is integrated with and the operator actually picking up the missile on it's inbound track.
Seeing a 6ft long, 8 - 10 inch wide tube "Missile", travelling at 500Kts. while being used as a towed target, then obliterated somewhere between 3Km & 1Km is proof enough for me !
Systems Adict
Can you elaborate more on the mount and combat system used?
What nationality was involved?
The USN have adopted the 57mm for some of their vessels, but 3P is made by Bofors (i think). The US have developed the competing AHEAD ammunition but I only know of its use in 35mm. However I would think that upsizing into a 57mm design would be relatively easy for the US.
rb
AHEAD is a German concept developed by Rheinmetall (or rather its sub-company OerlikonContraves).
The US doesn't use AHEAD (or a 35mm gun). Lockheed-Martin and the ONR mounted the Rheinmetall 35mm GDM-008 (Millenium Gun) using AHEAD on a single technology demonstrator ship for tests.
AHEAD is also available in an experimental 30x173 version, btw, using different pellet sizes and numbers.
Nope, the Gun was loaded & used Practice Ammo at the time, as H.E. is just a tadd EXPENSIVE !
This some time between 1997 & 99, during proving trials, when the gun was integrated with the Combat system, on two ships for Malaysia.(Link #1)
Bofors where involved at the time, but Bofors is now owned (in some/most respects) by BAE Systems. (Link #2)
If you goto the 2nd link, there are additional links there for the 3P Ammo that can be used by the mount & the variation of this mount that will be used by the US Coastguard.
Links:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lekiu/
http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_bofors_mm_mk_three.html
Hope this answers your questions...
Systems Adict
Yes my bad. I was aware that Oerlikon Contraves had participated in the development. For some reason I thought that the USN were also development partners.
rb
Lockheed-Martin was a development partner for the Millenium Gun (mostly for the sensors and mount though). AHEAD itself is a pure Oerlikon Contraves development.
Thanks for that.
In an earlier post you mentioned an experimental AHEAD round with different pellet size and number. Would that be a larger pellet size to defeat possible armoured missiles etc?
For some reason I vaguely remember reading about something like that but can't remember if it was AHEAD or 3P.
rb
basically, AHEAD is available in two pellet sizes (each pellet is a small cylinder). iirc the larger ones are 3.5mm diameter, the smaller ones 1.6mm diameter. something like that. the 30mm version is only available in the smaller pellet size, the 35mm version is available in both. trials have found that the small pellet versions are not as effective vs missiles, and largely ineffective against "hard" ground targets.
It s a hailstorm-1 perhaps, and first appeared on the 2007 Abu Dhabi military show.multiple guidence-control system include radar and photoelectric detector was adopted to give a more efficient kill.It was suspected that QW-3air-defence missile and 630 gun was installed on hailstorm.The Russians will probably puke blood when they see this. Is there anything the Chinese military won't copy off of?
However, little was the further informtion revealed, even the name of the producer is still a enigma to me.
Why ? I do not know what is best, but Norway did choose Oto 76mSR as the only self defense weapon at sea on the Skjold class, in competition with Bofors 57mm. The same gun is used on the Nansen class frigates, and they are not equipped with CIWS.
Perhaps they think the new Davide system, with guided projectile, can do the job as CIWS. Otobreda claims that average number of rounds per engagement = 3.
otobreda.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_naval_development_davide_ge
Personally, I would go for the Goalkeeper (and yes, I'm Dutch ).
If you already have SM2 or 3 and ESSM and they some how failed to do their job, why thrust yet another missle for the last defence?
Look at the Royal Navy, they learned the anti-ship missle danger the hard way. Their carriers had Phalanx, but since now have Goalkeepers...
Tests in US (somewhere in the early 90's) showed the supremacy of Goalkeeper over Phalanx clearly.
That guns simply rules! (in A-10 as well)
).If you already have SM2 or 3 and ESSM and they some how failed to do their job, why thrust yet another missle for the last defence?
Look at the Royal Navy, they learned the anti-ship missle danger the hard way. Their carriers had Phalanx, but since now have Goalkeepers...
Tests in US (somewhere in the early 90's) showed the supremacy of Goalkeeper over Phalanx clearly.
That guns simply rules! (in A-10 as well)
No their carriers had Goalkeeper but they phased them out in favor of Phalanx.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2F02C104-31DA-417A-B9FC-7A748238D75D/0/ark_royals_air_defence.pdf
Goalkeeper is a nice system, however it eats up space on the ship (goes down 2 decks), while Phalanx doesn't, you just bolt it in place and hook up a cooling line from the ships fire main.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2F02C104-31DA-417A-B9FC-7A748238D75D/0/ark_royals_air_defence.pdf
Goalkeeper is a nice system, however it eats up space on the ship (goes down 2 decks), while Phalanx doesn't, you just bolt it in place and hook up a cooling line from the ships fire main.
Oh, I didn't know that.
I was referring to the change from Phalanx to Goalkeeper of the HMS Invincible and Illustrious. Both had there two Phalanx systems changed for three Goalkeepers (somewhere in the 80's?). Apparently, the Royal Navy has them re-changed. Although I understand the reason, personally, I have no doubt of the superiority of the Goalkeeper. Range, Hits on target and the amount of ammunition is far better. As demonstrated by tests in the US.
I have seen Goalkeepers at Thales (former Holland Signaal) who manufactures the Goalkeeper. The part that goes below the deck is indeed huge! But… I wouldn’t like to reload the Phalanx under battle conditions! I’d take the more expensive and room-consuming Goalkeeper.
I was referring to the change from Phalanx to Goalkeeper of the HMS Invincible and Illustrious. Both had there two Phalanx systems changed for three Goalkeepers (somewhere in the 80's?). Apparently, the Royal Navy has them re-changed. Although I understand the reason, personally, I have no doubt of the superiority of the Goalkeeper. Range, Hits on target and the amount of ammunition is far better. As demonstrated by tests in the US.
I have seen Goalkeepers at Thales (former Holland Signaal) who manufactures the Goalkeeper. The part that goes below the deck is indeed huge! But… I wouldn’t like to reload the Phalanx under battle conditions! I’d take the more expensive and room-consuming Goalkeeper.
perfectgeneral
New Member
Even with a Type 45 escort, I think that CVF should have CAMM and 3x Goalkeeper at the very least. Ideally:
16 MBDA Aster15 (PAAMS/Sampson)
8x MBDA quad-packed CAMM
4x BAE bofors 57mm CIWS
4x Thales Goalkeeper 30MM CIWS
16 MBDA Aster15 (PAAMS/Sampson)
8x MBDA quad-packed CAMM
4x BAE bofors 57mm CIWS
4x Thales Goalkeeper 30MM CIWS
greywolf109
New Member
The turkish navy has also adopted the phalanx system, there is a video on youtube that shows the sea zenith being tested solo, and in combination with SAMs, turkish frigates use 3 sea seniths each, 1 at the front and 2 at the rear, along 8 SAM pods...TCG KEMAL REISS is a good example as there are plenty of pictures, the phalanx systems are being replace by sea zenith on most ships, i still dont know how it perfoms on paper but it is supposed to be a very affective system, but still that is not fact, i will look around
With the new DAVIDE system, the 76mm has become a very powerful mutli-role weapon, even CIWS. Supposedly the new ammunition created for the Oto Melara 76mm has a range of 30km! That definitely beats the 57mm.
-----JT-----
30km... that's probaby not a direct fire range and probably not the effective range