Modern CIWS systems

[kato]

76mm is only useful for anti-missile purposes when utilizing Davide/DART. Which hasn't been introduced anywhere yet. OTO claims that bursts of 3 rounds (1.5 seconds) are enough for a single engagement, but considering the relatively small proximity-fuzed warheads such claims are doubtable.

As for the 57mm Mk110, i wouldn't call that a CIWS really. Not until i see any tests results showing it can reliably intercept at least subsonic targets...

As for usability of gun-based CIWS systems - the CIWS-2000 tests with Goalkeeper involved iirc 12 different targets (Harpoons, Exocets, target drones). Goalkeeper shot down every single one of them thrown at it.

 

[1805]

76mm is only useful for anti-missile purposes when utilizing Davide/DART. Which hasn't been introduced anywhere yet. OTO claims that bursts of 3 rounds (1.5 seconds) are enough for a single engagement, but considering the relatively small proximity-fuzed warheads such claims are doubtable.

As for the 57mm Mk110, i wouldn't call that a CIWS really. Not until i see any tests results showing it can reliably intercept at least subsonic targets...

As for usability of gun-based CIWS systems - the CIWS-2000 tests with Goalkeeper involved iirc 12 different targets (Harpoons, Exocets, target drones). Goalkeeper shot down every single one of them thrown at it.

But it was regarded as offering no improvement over development of Phalanx? Or was it politics that did not see if progress with the USN?

I thought the 76mm had been deployed in the anti missile role before in a 3 gun layout on previous Italian destroyers replacing the previous 40mm outfits?

 

[Todjaeger]

But it was regarded as offering no improvement over development of Phalanx? Or was it politics that did not see if progress with the USN?

I thought the 76mm had been deployed in the anti missile role before in a 3 gun layout on previous Italian destroyers replacing the previous 40mm outfits?

From memory (Kato, feel free to make corrections) there was a slight performance increase using the 30mm Goalkeeper vs. the 20mm Phalanx. However, the difference in performance was not considered 'sufficient' to cause the USN to switch to the larger gun.

Rather sensible IMO, gave that a Mk 15 Phalanx mount can be bolted/unbolted from the appropriate mountings, allowing 'pool' allocations. The significantly larger Goalkeeper penetrates the deck, which means that the weapon is installed much like other, larger calibre guns. Also, the 20mm calibre is in widespread US usage, with M61 guns in aircraft, the Mk 15, etc. A switch to Goalkeeper would have required a change in parts and ammunition for the weapon, as well as either a redesign of USN vessels to allow a Goalkeeper fitout, or Goalkeeper would have to wait until new USN vessel designs incorporated it.

It is also worth noting, that much of recent development (post USS Cole attack) in small calibre, rapid fire naval guns has been to provide some CIWS functions against both inbound aircraft, AShM, and FIAC. At this point, I would think using something like Phalanx or Goalkeeper against an AShM was a last ditch defence, as opposed to really expecting such systems to 'defend' the vessel.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

The significantly larger Goalkeeper penetrates the deck, which means that the weapon is installed much like other, larger calibre guns.

There's a containerized version of Goalkeeper without deck penetration. Only user as far as i know was Germany in 1991, as a pool for frigates on deployment to the Persian Gulf.

Also, the 20mm calibre is in widespread US usage, with M61 guns in aircraft, the Mk 15, etc.

30x173 is used by the US military as well (A-10 and more recently Mk46 naval guns on LCS, LPD-17).

 

[B1RDY]

Personally I think the 57mm is quite capable in it's role at the moment. And although the dual gun system is a better idea then western system I don't think having a missile system attached is a bad idea due to the system not being able to handle a lot of targets at once!

Really I think for anti-missile defence a 57mm accompanied by RAM's and dual 30mm's would be quite effective. So no I don't think the Phalanx systems are worth the money! These weapon systems are also effective at general anti-air defence.

In general however I believe ships have become effective at tackling everything but each other. In the event of two modern warships clashing I can somehow forsee two ships just firing missiles at each other to no effect! I can see how a 16" shell ripping through the modern wareships thin hull to be the most effective!! Just a stupid question! What is the biggest shell that can be used before it can be engaged by CIWS systems??? If anyone knows!!

 

[Bonza]

A Phalanx variant has been used to engage infantry mortar rounds, so I think pretty much any naval gun round would be fair game. I don't know why people get the idea that shells would be any different from missiles in terms of interception - particularly as shells, at any appreciable distance, are going to be fired in high arcs toward the target and thus give the target more response time, as opposed to sea-skimming missiles.

That said I could be working on some mistaken assumptions (hopefully Kato can set me straight if that's the case), but I don't see how a modern CIWS is going to have any issues with shooting down a 16-inch shell, though I've lost count of the number of times I've heard such a shell be recommended as a panacea for all naval ills...

 

[Waylander]

Well if you go by C-RAM Systems it is probably a 60mm commando mortar...

Nevertheless I see where you are coming from. While the ability of many navys to handle salvos of modern AShMs is increasing the number of missiles carried by surface combatants is not.

There are many here who know better but this is how I see it.

But if the range is right a Burke for example can very well use it's SM-2s and ESSMs against enemy surface contacts. The introduction of 100+km guided shells (like Vulcano) is going to increase the surface firepower tremdiously within 100km. A rapid firing 127mm gun is going to add alot of problems for a target which has to handle maybe half a dozen harpoons mixed with some SAM in anti-surface mode already.

I remember having read about future blocks of Tomahawk regaining an anti-shipping capability. Maybe others know more. The proliferation of multimode seekers in the future as well as the capabilities of current PGMs lead me to believe that future surface combatants will carry only one kind of missile for land attack and anti-shipping.

For example current air launched PGMs like Taurus, SCALP, JASSM and JSOW should be easily made anti-ship capable if they aren't already.

 

[B1RDY]

Yes I agree! The reason I'm so confident in big gun theory is that I once watched a documentary on the Canadian navy. They were sinking one of their old ships for an artificial reef and decided to use it as target practice. The destroyer used all of it's main armament and didn't scratch this destroyer! The ship wasn't sunk until a U.S Navy sub put a mk48 torpedo in it's side and blew the ship in half!!!

Plus shells aren't that expensive compared to missiles and loads can be fired at a time to simply saturate an enemy vessel.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes I agree! The reason I'm so confident in big gun theory is that I once watched a documentary on the Canadian navy. They were sinking one of their old ships for an artificial reef and decided to use it as target practice. The destroyer used all of it's main armament and didn't scratch this destroyer! The ship wasn't sunk until a U.S Navy sub put a mk48 torpedo in it's side and blew the ship in half!!!

Plus shells aren't that expensive compared to missiles and loads can be fired at a time to simply saturate an enemy vessel.

At present, no navy still follows the 'big gun' theory, with the largest naval guns in service of which I am aware of is ~6in naval cannon. Essentially the calibre gun which would have been found aboard a WWII-era light cruiser.

Now, a vessel, even a modern one, can be pounded on a great deal by cannon and missiles, without the vessel sinking. However, a properly fuzed torpedoe can break a keel in half. As such, this shows that one of the best weapons against enemy shipping or vessels are heavy weight torpedoes. These are usually found aboard submarines...

As for the advantages of cannon rounds vs. missiles, that debate is somewhat questionable, at least in the context provided above. Yes, 'dumb' rounds are significantly cheaper than a guided missiles, but also much less versatile and range-limited. The more advanced long range and/or guided cannon rounds are quite expensive, with less difference in price between that of a missile and a guided cannon round.

-Cheers

 

[kato]

Well if you go by C-RAM Systems it is probably a 60mm commando mortar...

All current C-RAM systems are rated for 80+ mm targets. Though that's mostly dependent on the radar.

 

[Waylander]

I knew you would come around.
I only knew that mortar rounds could be intercepted and so assumed that it includes the really small ones.

@B1RDY
I am not a follower of the big gun theory. Quite the other way around. I am even sceptical of the need to go up to 155mm which is discussed these days.

IMHO 1-2 127mm guns are enough as you can put alot of rounds with interesting capabilities against land and sea targets into the air.

I just wanted to say that the 8 AshMs usually carried by western FFGs, DDGs and CGDs are supplemented by the possibility to use the SAMs as well as the gun with modern ammo against enemy ships.

So it doesn't look so bleak for the anti-surface capability of current surface combatants even with the trend of better AAW capabilities while the number of AShMs remains constant.

Add to this the anti-ship capabilities of land and carrier based fast air, shipborn helicopters and submarines and the general anti-shipping capability looks ok.

 

[1805]

From memory (Kato, feel free to make corrections) there was a slight performance increase using the 30mm Goalkeeper vs. the 20mm Phalanx. However, the difference in performance was not considered 'sufficient' to cause the USN to switch to the larger gun.

Rather sensible IMO, gave that a Mk 15 Phalanx mount can be bolted/unbolted from the appropriate mountings, allowing 'pool' allocations. The significantly larger Goalkeeper penetrates the deck, which means that the weapon is installed much like other, larger calibre guns. Also, the 20mm calibre is in widespread US usage, with M61 guns in aircraft, the Mk 15, etc. A switch to Goalkeeper would have required a change in parts and ammunition for the weapon, as well as either a redesign of USN vessels to allow a Goalkeeper fitout, or Goalkeeper would have to wait until new USN vessel designs incorporated it.

It is also worth noting, that much of recent development (post USS Cole attack) in small calibre, rapid fire naval guns has been to provide some CIWS functions against both inbound aircraft, AShM, and FIAC. At this point, I would think using something like Phalanx or Goalkeeper against an AShM was a last ditch defence, as opposed to really expecting such systems to 'defend' the vessel.

-Cheers

Yes agree with you, although I was not suggesting adopting Goalkeeper but wondering if the USN had considered upgrading Phalanx to 30mm (it is a US gun).

 

[1805]

There's a containerized version of Goalkeeper without deck penetration. Only user as far as i know was Germany in 1991, as a pool for frigates on deployment to the Persian Gulf.

I didn't know that, do you know anywhere with a spec/photo? They didn't keep them in service after?

 

[1805]

A Phalanx variant has been used to engage infantry mortar rounds, so I think pretty much any naval gun round would be fair game. I don't know why people get the idea that shells would be any different from missiles in terms of interception - particularly as shells, at any appreciable distance, are going to be fired in high arcs toward the target and thus give the target more response time, as opposed to sea-skimming missiles.

That said I could be working on some mistaken assumptions (hopefully Kato can set me straight if that's the case), but I don't see how a modern CIWS is going to have any issues with shooting down a 16-inch shell, though I've lost count of the number of times I've heard such a shell be recommended as a panacea for all naval ills...

I think if the system detects an incoming there is a very high probability of hitting it, the big "what if" is could they really destroy a large/fast missile that close, this is why th USN & RN abandoned 40/20mm weapons post 1945 and went to 3", because of their experiences in the Pacific with Kamikaze.

 

[Bonza]

I think if the system detects an incoming there is a very high probability of hitting it, the big "what if" is could they really destroy a large/fast missile that close, this is why th USN & RN abandoned 40/20mm weapons post 1945 and went to 3", because of their experiences in the Pacific with Kamikaze.

I haven't really given much thought to the limitations of stopping a large, fast missile with a CIWS (generally because I assume the priority in the face of such a missile threat would be earlier detection, destruction or seduction, at ranges outside of that of a CIWS). It may be a concern but I assume, given large, fast sea skimmers have been around on the Russian side for decades now, that a layered defence is considered capable of addressing these threats.

But my point was more that a large calibre naval gun shell is no less vulnerable to detection and engagement than a missile and by virtue of its engagement profile may actually be more so in some cases.

 

[kato]

They didn't keep them in service after?

They supposedly returned them to Signaal after only two months. RAM introduction was hurried afterwards and outfitting started less than two years later.

 

[1805]

They supposedly returned them to Signaal after only two months. RAM introduction was hurried afterwards and outfitting started less than two years later.

interesting, I assume never reused. I think for an inter layer of defence, to really have a chance to stop missiles you need a combination of guns and missiles.

When battlefleets first face a similar threat from torpedos they developed craft optimised to destroy the delivery platform.... should modern navies develop something similar. Not the current crop of AWD...which are capital ships in their own right.

Old boats I know, but the AA firepower of a S143a for there size just looks perfect (76mm & RAM)... Coastal I know but that tends to be where all the trouble is.

I think RAM has or will have a ASM capability so no real need for a separate SSM.

 

[AegisFC]

A Phalanx variant has been used to engage infantry mortar rounds, so I think pretty much any naval gun round would be fair game. I don't know why people get the idea that shells would be any different from missiles in terms of interception - particularly as shells, at any appreciable distance, are going to be fired in high arcs toward the target and thus give the target more response time, as opposed to sea-skimming missiles.

A popular story among Phalanx techs is that during some round of testing a target was being towed behind an aircraft, the Phalanx engaged the test target and destroyed it. Then it started tracking and walking its fire up the chain.

That said I could be working on some mistaken assumptions (hopefully Kato can set me straight if that's the case), but I don't see how a modern CIWS is going to have any issues with shooting down a 16-inch shell, though I've lost count of the number of times I've heard such a shell be recommended as a panacea for all naval ills...

16 inch shells make a big boom and are impressive to look at but are pretty much useless for everything except NGFS and even then more modern rounds and other smart munitions provide much better danger close support at a fraction of the cost. The 16 inch fans ignore the large hull, large number of crew needed to run such a battery, also the pressure from the guns firing is incompatible with a lot of radars (one of the early plans for the Iowa recommissionings involved slapping an Aegis set on board but it was soon discovered the pressure from the main guns would rupture the SPY arrays, even Phalanx had trouble with dealing with it in the beginning).
When the Iowa's were recommissioned for the last time in the 80's it was because it was the only hull setting in mothballs that could handle more than a dozen or so armored box launched Tomahawks, and it was billed as a very cheap upgrade, once enough VLS equipped Tico's and Spruances started to show up they were once again tossed back into reserve.

Nevertheless I see where you are coming from. While the ability of many navys to handle salvos of modern AShMs is increasing the number of missiles carried by surface combatants is not.

That is where quadpacking smaller missiles like ESSM's comes in.

But if the range is right a Burke for example can very well use it's SM-2s and ESSMs against enemy surface contacts. The introduction of 100+km guided shells (like Vulcano) is going to increase the surface firepower tremdiously within 100km. A rapid firing 127mm gun is going to add alot of problems for a target which has to handle maybe half a dozen harpoons mixed with some SAM in anti-surface mode already.

Considering the restrictive ROEs that are in place for most countries weapons like 127mm cannon and anti-surface mode missiles are the weapon of choice.

The proliferation of multimode seekers in the future as well as the capabilities of current PGMs lead me to believe that future surface combatants will carry only one kind of missile for land attack and anti-shipping.

Agree, at the very least you could have a common frame, warhead and interface with different software and sensors.

Yes I agree! The reason I'm so confident in big gun theory is that I once watched a documentary on the Canadian navy. They were sinking one of their old ships for an artificial reef and decided to use it as target practice. The destroyer used all of it's main armament and didn't scratch this destroyer! The ship wasn't sunk until a U.S Navy sub put a mk48 torpedo in it's side and blew the ship in half!!!

Plus shells aren't that expensive compared to missiles and loads can be fired at a time to simply saturate an enemy vessel.

I know the film you are talking about, it was about the sink-ex of the Huron and I'll be honest while it was a decent program for the layman it was crap if you want to know anything about real naval combat or operations. The film didn't really show or explain anything of any importance, most of the ships seemed to be firing training rounds (non-explosive) until the end, and they were firing into a super structure of a ship that was stripped of everything flammable (and an active warship has plenty of flammable and explosive items on board). They were also unloading crew served weapons on the hulk and having Hornets do strafing runs on it as well so it wasn't a realistic example of how to sink a warship. Yes near the end they shot a Sea Sparrow at it but that is a small missile with only a 90 pound warhead and isn't normally used in surface mode.

At present, no navy still follows the 'big gun' theory, with the largest naval guns in service of which I am aware of is ~6in naval cannon. Essentially the calibre gun which would have been found aboard a WWII-era light cruiser.

Historically the 127mm class (I'm referring to 4-8 inch guns) has provided the best flexibility in uses compared to larger guns. I think AGS is an anomoly and will never see wide spread use.
Back in the 1970's and early 80's the USN did develop a light weight 8 inch gun and built the Spruance class with the space and weight to take said gun later but wisely they choose to go with VLS instead.

 

[rossfrb_1]

A popular story among Phalanx techs is that during some round of testing a target was being towed behind an aircraft, the Phalanx engaged the test target and destroyed it. Then it started tracking and walking its fire up the chain.

The story I heard was about a flock of birds (geese?) whose flight path strayed through a Phalanx test area - apparently they only did it once.....

rb

 

[B1RDY]

At present, no navy still follows the 'big gun' theory, with the largest naval guns in service of which I am aware of is ~6in naval cannon. Essentially the calibre gun which would have been found aboard a WWII-era light cruiser.

Now, a vessel, even a modern one, can be pounded on a great deal by cannon and missiles, without the vessel sinking. However, a properly fuzed torpedoe can break a keel in half. As such, this shows that one of the best weapons against enemy shipping or vessels are heavy weight torpedoes. These are usually found aboard submarines...

As for the advantages of cannon rounds vs. missiles, that debate is somewhat questionable, at least in the context provided above. Yes, 'dumb' rounds are significantly cheaper than a guided missiles, but also much less versatile and range-limited. The more advanced long range and/or guided cannon rounds are quite expensive, with less difference in price between that of a missile and a guided cannon round.

-Cheers

This is very true! Modern weapons are very good with regards to superstructure but I've never seen anything do as much damage to a ship than a torpedo! Do modern destroyers even carry torpedo's these days. If this is the case what guidance system do they have, and in response what countermeasures do ships have to combat torpedo's?

With the information provided I think that if a missile is not destroyed by ships main guns or RAM's (which I believe to be highly unlikely), that the CIWS range of weapons would be quite capable of destroying these targets. All in all I think ships these days are quite capable of a multitude of different tasks.

However I still feel that in the event of a war which had two modern vessels fighting each other (this what I've seen based on training videos), that the crew would not have the capability to match the warship in a fight. For example non of the captains are kept on a ship for very long and the crew are always changed about, would they know to saturate a target with both shells from the main weapon and anti-ship missiles aswell as any other general missile to saturate the enemy?? The speed at which modern vessels crews operate has to be greatly improved to match the speed of modern weapons! But from what I've seen it would appear that all the red tape that goes with simply shooting at someone my make the job ocf the captain and crew quite difficult!!