Modern CIWS systems
- Thread starter Big-E
- Start date
I've always liked the look of the Breda "Fast 40" twin mount system, with a 900 round RoF and a conversion to use BAe/Bofors 3p ammunition it would seem like an excellent alternative to the 20mm phalanx CIWS, it is similar in weight, footprint and is available in a zero deck penetration version.
Just how much ammo does the zero deck penetration model hold and what sort of reloading system does it use once the supply has been exhausted?
I'm just thinking that 40mm rounds take up a bit of space, so something with a RoF of 900 rounds per min could quickly deplete its onboard supply. So if reloads don't come up thru the bottom, then they would have to be manhandled in somehow.
rb
444-round PFHE magazine, 200-round APFSDS magazine (dual ammunition feed). Version with deck penetration has a 736-round PFHE magazine instead, same-size for APFSDS. Two 5-round feed units on the guns. Superficially identical to the Breda 40mm Compact mount, improvement is in turret slew rate and the added dual feed and APFSDS magazine. The system engages with PFHE at up to 3 km range, and switches to APFSDS if target comes to within 1 km range.
Reload of the magazines is manual from the deckside, as far as i know - same as with Phalanx and most other similar systems.
Can goalkeeper be effective against maneuvering missile?
I like the idea of guns like Goalkeeper. But I am not proffesional in this area, so maybe quys You can explain if such gun-based CIWS system can be effective at all against maneuvering missile?. If engagement range is about one km, the bullet must fly about 1s to the target. During this time subsonic missile will fly let's say 300m. If missile will change his path only by 10m , it means it can be anywhere in the circle with 10m radius, what means about 300 m2. If missile size is 30 cm in diameter, what is probalitlity of hitting missile with bullet?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)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One thing to keep in mind with CIWS that are gun-based... There is not a single projectile heading towards the inbound missile. Rather, it a 'wall of lead' which is fired to ensure hits on the missile. In the case of a system like the Phalanx Mk 15 20mm CIWS, it has a ROF of ~4,500 rounds per minute on later systems. It would not be able to fire that many rounds though, as the magazine would be exhausted after ~15 seconds Other systems like Goalkeeper (a 30 mm) or the Millenium Gun (35 mm) attempt to do the same thing, namely get a large number of projectiles into the air to achieve hits on the target.
One thing which must be noted is that the importance of a gun as a close-in anti-missile system does seem to be declining. I attribute this less to increased difficulty in achieving hits upon an inbound missile and more to the increased difficulty in actually shooting down a missile before it can hit the targeted ship. With some of the AShM now having high speed terminal phases, the AShM might be travelling at Mach 3+. That means if the missile has made it to within 1-2 km of the target ship, it will close that distance in only 1-2 seconds, and the missile will also have the KE associated with that sort of speed. This is important, because even if the CIWS does achieve hits on the missile, barring an event which would alter the flight path significantly like a fuel or warhead explosion, debris from the missile it likely to strike the target ship due to projectile motion. IMO the debris would stand a decent chance of achieving a mission kill on a target vessel, as it would likely score hits like a cannister round or shotshell, damaging sensors and comm systems.
This does seem why there has been an increase in gun calibre for use in air defence. The larger guns have greater range, thus extending the distance at which the CIWS can operate.
-Cheers
My understand was that the new versions of weapons like the OTO 76mm ( the Italians using this as a replacement for the 40mm twins) and 57mm Mk 110 (on the DDX?) are intended to be CIWS. The balistic nature of the terminal flight of a SSM has been a problem with subsonic missiles aswell (didn't a US techniction get killed in a test in 70s where Phalanx hit the target but it carried on anyway?). I think the USN has always been sceptical about the value of weapons like 20mm Phalanx they have not really developed it significantly over 30 years and put its faith is destroying missiles at greater distance with Aegis/Standard.
It is odd how lessons are re-learned the USN/RN abandoned 20mm/40mm because of the failure to deal with the balisitc nature of kamikaze attacks and the early post war period was spent on developing a joint 76mm weapon (RN verson Mk 6) The OTO 76mm was a very distant product of this approach, long after the USN lost interest in gunfire in the AA role.
It's time to stop taking up space on escort ships with bulky shore bombardment guns 127mm and fit a lot more 57/76mm guns as CIWS WITH RAM/Sea RAM. I think the threat is now so great from current subsonic SSM let alone future mass availablity of supersonic missiles, that we need both guns and missiles in the CIWS space. I could see Iranian shore batteries of mass C802s driving the Western Naval presence from the Gulf
It is odd how lessons are re-learned the USN/RN abandoned 20mm/40mm because of the failure to deal with the balisitc nature of kamikaze attacks and the early post war period was spent on developing a joint 76mm weapon (RN verson Mk 6) The OTO 76mm was a very distant product of this approach, long after the USN lost interest in gunfire in the AA role.
It's time to stop taking up space on escort ships with bulky shore bombardment guns 127mm and fit a lot more 57/76mm guns as CIWS WITH RAM/Sea RAM. I think the threat is now so great from current subsonic SSM let alone future mass availablity of supersonic missiles, that we need both guns and missiles in the CIWS space. I could see Iranian shore batteries of mass C802s driving the Western Naval presence from the Gulf
Ciws
You say "wall of lead". But even at 4500 rpm, gun can fire only 75 shell per second. Imagine, if I can shot 150 shell not during 2 seconds, but at once (just for better explanation), I can create a "wall of lead" 15x10 m with 1 shell per 1m2. A missile incoming perpendicular to the wall can go through the holes in this "wall" easily or go around it, if it changes its path by, 10 meters from the way I predicted during the time which happend from shot to meeting with missile.
But maybe I am wrong because maybe ASM fly just balistically directly to the target with predictable path.. Or maybe CIWS shells like 20-30 mm are fragmenting in flight - as I learned about bigger shells, than having more possibility to hit the target, but with even less stopping power..
Kind Regards.
"Stopping power" of small caliber CIWS must be important point. But my concern was if at all CIWS can hit manouvering target. It the missile is imcoming with balistic flight, its way can be predicted and hit can be achieved with great probability. But if path of missile can not be predicted?.
You say "wall of lead". But even at 4500 rpm, gun can fire only 75 shell per second. Imagine, if I can shot 150 shell not during 2 seconds, but at once (just for better explanation), I can create a "wall of lead" 15x10 m with 1 shell per 1m2. A missile incoming perpendicular to the wall can go through the holes in this "wall" easily or go around it, if it changes its path by, 10 meters from the way I predicted during the time which happend from shot to meeting with missile.
But maybe I am wrong because maybe ASM fly just balistically directly to the target with predictable path.. Or maybe CIWS shells like 20-30 mm are fragmenting in flight - as I learned about bigger shells, than having more possibility to hit the target, but with even less stopping power..
Kind Regards.
I think the reference to "balistic" is more that at a certain closing range the missiles mass means the 20/30mm weapons might hit the missile but they will not stop it and it will carry on in a balistic trajectory. These happened in WW2 in the latter stage of the Pacific war and led the USN/RN to drop 20/40mm for 76mm The current trend is for missiles like RAM or larger calibre guns that will destoy the target missile.
Todjaeger I was under the impression that 127mm and 114mm guns are not very useful in the AA role due to their low rate of fire compared to 76mm and 57mm guns. Or were you refering to CIWS like Phalanx and Goalkeeper? You mentioned CIWS being gun based. There is a version of RAM fitted with a Phalanx [not sure what its called] but it hasn't been ordered yet. What I can't figure out is why the USN continues to install Phalanx on certain ships when Phalanx is reportedly ineffective against supersonic missiles like Sunburn and KIub. In your opinon does the Bofors 3P 57mm round really offer an improved capability against supersonic missiles? Thank you.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sorry about the delay. I have created a detailed reply which my system closed prior to it posting...
For the larger main guns (100+ mm) they do have their uses in air defence by virtue of their longer possible range vs. CIWS but they do generally have too low a ROF to deal with missiles. OTOH I believe the Italians have a 127 mm/5" gun with a ROF of 40 rpm, that coupled with guided munitions might have some potential...
When I posted before about the transition to larger calibre guns, I was refering to the change from rapid fire 20mm guns like the Mk 15 Phalanx to the similar 30 mm Goalkeeper or now the 35 mm Millenium Gun. They are still mounting rapid fire guns, but in firing larger rounds, have greater range and/or should be able to achieve more damaging hits with submunitions than is possible with just 20 mm rounds. This in turn should improve the chances of inflicting sufficient damage on an incoming missile's warhead, guidance package and/or flight control systems to cause the missile not to impact a targeted ship.
As far as the viability of using a 57 mm Bofors (Mk 110 presumably) vs. a supersonic AShM... I would rather have the 76 mm/62 cal. Super Rapid. The Bofors has a listed ROF of 220 rpm and a range of ~9 miles using Mk 295 Mod 0 ammunition, but the range is typically half that or less if against sea skimming targets. That would give it an effective range vs. incoming sea skimming missiles of ~7km or less, given that the DAVIDE round for the OTO-Melara 76 mm/62 cal. has a stated range of 5+ km vs. missile targets I doubt that the smaller 57 mm round would perform better.
As for why the USN is still using the Mk 15 Phalanx, there are a few reasons which come to mind. For one thing, the USN from a doctrine standpoint could consider inbound AShM being engaged by CIWS to already be a sign of system failure/overload. Another is that the USN has been using the Mk 15 for a long time (31 years) across a number of platforms, so there are quite a few in inventory, enough so that they have been receiving updates to keep them relevant to potential threats by now being able to engage small FAC. Lastly the Mk 15 has features that other systems aside perhaps from the Millenium Gun do not have, namely a lack of deck penetration. The Mk 15 can essentially be bolted onto a reinforced deck mounting without penetrating into the decks beneath. This allows a Mk 15 to be added onto or removed from a vessel fairly quickly compared to other systems, and this ability reduces the number of systems needed in inventory as well as the maintenance burden of the gun. Other systems like the Goalkeeper penetrate into the deck beneath the mounting which means that adding or removing such a system from a vessel is more involved and has a greater impact upon the vessel in a number of areas.
Incidentally, the 35 mm Millenium Gun developed by LockMart and Oerlikon does not to my knowledge penetrate the deck and would seem intended as the replacement for the Mk 15, but that is just my opinion.
-Cheers
Sorry about the delay. I have created a detailed reply which my system closed prior to it posting...
For the larger main guns (100+ mm) they do have their uses in air defence by virtue of their longer possible range vs. CIWS but they do generally have too low a ROF to deal with missiles. OTOH I believe the Italians have a 127 mm/5" gun with a ROF of 40 rpm, that coupled with guided munitions might have some potential...
When I posted before about the transition to larger calibre guns, I was refering to the change from rapid fire 20mm guns like the Mk 15 Phalanx to the similar 30 mm Goalkeeper or now the 35 mm Millenium Gun. They are still mounting rapid fire guns, but in firing larger rounds, have greater range and/or should be able to achieve more damaging hits with submunitions than is possible with just 20 mm rounds. This in turn should improve the chances of inflicting sufficient damage on an incoming missile's warhead, guidance package and/or flight control systems to cause the missile not to impact a targeted ship.
As far as the viability of using a 57 mm Bofors (Mk 110 presumably) vs. a supersonic AShM... I would rather have the 76 mm/62 cal. Super Rapid. The Bofors has a listed ROF of 220 rpm and a range of ~9 miles using Mk 295 Mod 0 ammunition, but the range is typically half that or less if against sea skimming targets. That would give it an effective range vs. incoming sea skimming missiles of ~7km or less, given that the DAVIDE round for the OTO-Melara 76 mm/62 cal. has a stated range of 5+ km vs. missile targets I doubt that the smaller 57 mm round would perform better. I would love to know more about the rational of the USN selection of 57mm over Super Rapid 76mm, I was reading some info online but it sounded like BAe sales stuff, could it have been influenced by the close relationship with BAe and the 155mm gun system. Also I wonder as the DDG1000 programme has been reduced to 3? what they the new order of Burkes will have as CIWS, Phalanax, Sea RAM....very outside Mk 110, does anyone have any info/thoughts?
I think that is a good point about the bolt on nature of Phalanx, a lesson there about the value of the modular nature of any systems
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zxxogDRIw[/nomedia]
Hi
I've been looking at this, which while impresive does not seem the done deal. Is it just me or would a gun bassed system knock the drone out much quicker?
Hi
I've been looking at this, which while impresive does not seem the done deal. Is it just me or would a gun bassed system knock the drone out much quicker?
Much quicker - but the laser weapon is being developed, not operationally deployed. So give them a few more years and see how it looks then - can't improve its performance levels without developing it.
Impressive clip. It's not clear how long the laser took to disable the target. I could see issues with targeting in that the laser would need to be locked on the target for the duration on the engagement, like a beam riding missile. However it was some years before the longbow was effectively surpassed by early matchlocks.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
8 seconds from first beam of light (possibly smoke?) and the burst of flames.
Remember that it is basically a remote control aircraft though, and the material its made from is probably only very thin.
On the other hand, the laser used was only 32kw. Thats 16 2000w blow heaters. Not very powerful is it?