Some clarity for Phalanx CIWS Numbers.
My take is we currently have twelve units, but as I recall there was talk of acquiring an additional two for a total of fourteen!
Can anyone assist?
Regards S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
My take is we currently have twelve units, but as I recall there was talk of acquiring an additional two for a total of fourteen!
Can anyone assist?
Regards S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
They are going to have to order the weapon systems for the first 3 Hunters in the next year or so, including of course the CIWS which at this time is 2x20mm CIWS per Ship, so Phalanx at this stage. So probably more likely to see a order of up to 8 systems.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I must admit I find the persistence with Phalanx a little puzzling in light of the emerging threat environment. It must be close to obsolete by now - would have expected SeaRAM to be more useful.
Then again money doesn't grow on trees, we already have a pool of Phalanx to draw upon and 20mm rounds are a more cost effective way to deal with small boats etc than a RIM-116... Still, I suspect we will have to make the jump to something more relevant eventually.
Then again money doesn't grow on trees, we already have a pool of Phalanx to draw upon and 20mm rounds are a more cost effective way to deal with small boats etc than a RIM-116... Still, I suspect we will have to make the jump to something more relevant eventually.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Given the age of the M61 20mm gatling gun which is part of the Phalanx CIWS, would it be more suitable for a 25mm gun to be used to replace the M61? This would reduce the number of ammunition types carried on the ships if they are also equipped with the 25mm Typhoon RWS.
I do agree that 20mm/25mm rounds would be a more cost effective way of dealing with small boats, and potentially small UAVs.
According to the department of defence web site, the Hunter Class are to start entering service in the late 20's which still seems a long way off, but realistically some decisions on ships systems will need to be made soon.
As to today we have 12 Phalanx in inventory for the fleet........................Correct?
Going forward I am also guarded as to the relevance of Phalanx.
The need for 360 degree coverage against the full range of threats out to a few KM's will not go away.
I suggest short range missiles alone will not economically cover the full range of threats, so probably a PAIR of larger caliber cannon base systems in conjunction with a SEA RAM type system will be the way forward.
Thinking more 40mm rather than 30mm.
The 30mm caliber may be ok for the land environment, but the range / weight and task flexibility of the smart 40mm round in the maritime environment is at the point where it truly gives options across the full range of threats.
Time to say good bye to the Phalanx / Typhoon bushmaster generation with the introduction of the Hunter Class and then start retrofitting this new standard to the rest of the fleet
Long term Laser technology may evolve, but I still feel it will be sometime before it is a proven substitute for existing systems.
Regards S
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
And the legacy weapons can be repurposed to our up coming fleet of ASV's.According to the department of defence web site, the Hunter Class are to start entering service in the late 20's which still seems a long way off, but realistically some decisions on ships systems will need to be made soon.
As to today we have 12 Phalanx in inventory for the fleet........................Correct?
Going forward I am also guarded as to the relevance of Phalanx.
The need for 360 degree coverage against the full range of threats out to a few KM's will not go away.
I suggest short range missiles alone will not economically cover the full range of threats, so probably a PAIR of larger caliber cannon base systems in conjunction with a SEA RAM type system will be the way forward.
Thinking more 40mm rather than 30mm.
The 30mm caliber may be ok for the land environment, but the range / weight and task flexibility of the smart 40mm round in the maritime environment is at the point where it truly gives options across the full range of threats.
Time to say good bye to the Phalanx / Typhoon bushmaster generation with the introduction of the Hunter Class and then start retrofitting this new standard to the rest of the fleet
Long term Laser technology may evolve, but I still feel it will be sometime before it is a proven substitute for existing systems.
Regards S
Does the RAN have a plan for ASV's?
They would likely benefit significantly from ASV's, much as the RAAF may from the loyal wingman and the ADF does/will from the many drone aircraft each of the services deploys. The tyranny of distance, providing persistence and adding mass by adding a ASV would seem to be a no brainer, yet there seems to be little public evidence of significant developments. It is the same for the subsurface domain.
Rheinmettall are now working on the Skyranger a 30mm variant of their 35 mm Millennium gun that uses the same AHEAD ammo type. The 30mm round will have a significantly larger destructive capability than the 20mm round, as well as significant range advantage. A USN study compared the destructiveness of the 25mm and 30mm rounds, and it found that the 30 mm round had 9 times the destructiveness of the 25mm round. The video below discusses the study.According to the department of defence web site, the Hunter Class are to start entering service in the late 20's which still seems a long way off, but realistically some decisions on ships systems will need to be made soon.
As to today we have 12 Phalanx in inventory for the fleet........................Correct?
Going forward I am also guarded as to the relevance of Phalanx.
The need for 360 degree coverage against the full range of threats out to a few KM's will not go away.
I suggest short range missiles alone will not economically cover the full range of threats, so probably a PAIR of larger caliber cannon base systems in conjunction with a SEA RAM type system will be the way forward.
Thinking more 40mm rather than 30mm.
The 30mm caliber may be ok for the land environment, but the range / weight and task flexibility of the smart 40mm round in the maritime environment is at the point where it truly gives options across the full range of threats.
Time to say good bye to the Phalanx / Typhoon bushmaster generation with the introduction of the Hunter Class and then start retrofitting this new standard to the rest of the fleet
Long term Laser technology may evolve, but I still feel it will be sometime before it is a proven substitute for existing systems.
Regards S
Now if the destructiveness difference between the 25mm and 30mm rounds is a factor of 9, what would the destructiveness difference between the 20mm and 30mm rounds be? Add in the capabilities of the AHEAD ammo, then you have a CIWS that has possibilities.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Great vid, thanks for the share. One point that was raised when I had this conversation elsewhere is that the effect of an armour piercing 20mm round that connects skin to skin with an ASCM may still be greater than one or more impacts from the fragments/pellets that 30-35mm AHEAD produces. Strikes me as important to identify precisely what threats we want the CIWS to defeat and then look to how it will do so.
Last edited:
Thanks for the vid.
Yep the 25mm is a toy.
Should of upgraded the Typhoons to 30mm yonks' ago.
.................................................................................................................
The question is in looking to the future, how large / small do you.
Weight of gun platform / rate of fire / deck penetration ? / Ammunition load out / fire control and much more suggests a lot of ingredients to consider.
As impressive the 25mm to 30 mm comparison is ; the 40 mm round still seems to offer the most.
Has the rate of fire the larger calibers lack but still has all the smart fuse options.
Has the range advantage over the 25 / 30mm calibers with the weight of shot delivering greater lethality to target.
All within a relatively low weight system.
Any contingency out to 3 to 4 km it offers a response.
Even some modest fire support shore fire 10 km out will keep the bathers off the beach!
When ships have limited geography and weight limits you want to maximize your return on investment.
All weapon systems are expensive, but when the threat is that close to the ship you want to have the correct response!
40mm is certainly my pick for the decades ahead.
Regards S
My argument against the Phalanx has always been that the calibre is too small, hence the range to short. Even if it shreds a AShM the range is so close the momentum of the missile wreckage is still going to cause it to hit the ship. When the missiles were the size of the Penguin, it wasn't so much of a problem, but now you have missiles with 500kg warheads and weighing close to 1 tonne. That's a lot of potential energy heading your way at 600 knots. If it's a supersonic missile such as the Brahmos then the potential energy is far greater. In that case you want to destroy them as far out as possible. 2,000m is far to close.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Agree. A much safer alternative lies in the 57mm MAD-FIRES concept, where you meet incoming ASMs with a wall of plunging, guided 57mm shells further out. That said the actual weapon seems far too bulky to take up a CIWS spot on most vessels...
I do wonder if a guided 35-40mm version might provide a good sweet spot here.
Well the Italian Navy mount 76mm guns fore and aft on their FREMM variants so there is no real reason why you couldn't mount a couple of 57mm guns the same way, with the fore gun being mounted in the B Gun position behind the VLS. Another way would be to mount one port and the other starboard.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Interesting, I didn't know that. In the interim I suppose there is also the possibility of using guided HVPs from the existing 5in guns on the Anzac and Hobart classes. Could be invaluable to the former in particular, as it can probably do with all the fire-power enhancements it can get.
Navy Quietly Fires 20 Hyper Velocity Projectiles Through Destroyer’s Deckgun - USNI News
Last summer USS Dewey (DDG-105) fired 20 hyper velocity projectiles (HVP) from a standard Mk 45 5-inch deck gun in a quiet experiment that’s set to add new utility to the weapon found on almost every U.S. warship, officials familiar with the test have told USNI News. The test, conducted by the...
news.usni.org
That said this calibre wouldn't really qualify as a CIWS... I do have to wonder though whether the lack of margin on the Anzacs is a significant driver behind the lack of a fleet-wide CIWS replacement. Perhaps we will see some progress on this front when the Hunters arrive...
One of the reasons that I believe maybe applicable, is that people grow very comfortable and familiar with what they have seeing no reason to change. An example of that would be the US fixation for the 50 cal machine gun on their fighter jets up to and including the F-86 Sabre, when every one else had gone to cannon; the RAF 20mm & 30mm, Russians 23mm & 37mm, RAAF 20mm & 30mm (in CAC Sabre). This isn't necessarily the optimal solution.Interesting, I didn't know that. In the interim I suppose there is also the possibility of using guided HVPs from the existing 5in guns on the Anzac and Hobart classes. Could be invaluable to the former in particular, as it can probably do with all the fire-power enhancements it can get.
Navy Quietly Fires 20 Hyper Velocity Projectiles Through Destroyer’s Deckgun - USNI News
Last summer USS Dewey (DDG-105) fired 20 hyper velocity projectiles (HVP) from a standard Mk 45 5-inch deck gun in a quiet experiment that’s set to add new utility to the weapon found on almost every U.S. warship, officials familiar with the test have told USNI News. The test, conducted by the...
That said this calibre wouldn't really qualify as a CIWS... I do have to wonder though whether the lack of margin on the Anzacs is a significant driver behind the lack of a fleet-wide CIWS replacement. Perhaps we will see some progress on this front when the Hunters arrive...
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I like the analogy. Probably worth noting that hypersonic anti-ship weapons like ASBMs (DF-21/26), HCMs (Tsirkon, DF-100) and HGVs (DF-17?) really turn the concept of a CIWS on its head. Faced with an inbound weapon that fast, an extended range SAM like the SM-6 could be the best/only last-ditch hard-kill option available. That said, there are still likely to be an abundance of more traditional subsonic (YJ-100) and supersonic (YJ-12/18) ASMs to deal with for many years to come, so perhaps our future CIWS systems ought to be optimised to kill those...
Takao
The Bunker Group
Which, ironically speaking, is the historical pattern. Matched by @Stampede's comment.
Kamikaze's were too fast and too heavy to be stopped by 20 mm; instead it was VT fuses, 40 mm Borfors and 3" rapid fire, DP guns.
Noting the similarities between a kamikaze and a modern subsonic AShM (let alone faster), I've always been surprised we didn't jump to 35/40 mm and 76 mm. I certainly expected it by now.
The other thing to was if you looked at the the AAA of the USN CV of the time, there was a wall of 20mm Oerlikon guns down the sides of the carriers. The weight of fire from the 20mm cannons did destroy inbound kamikaze aircraft but because of their range, like you say, the momentum was enough to have the aircraft, its warhead and remaining fuel load, plough into the ship, or close aboard.
Also their decks were unarmoured, being wooden unlike the RN CV which all had armoured flight decks. As one USN Admiral said at the time, "If a Jap kamikaze hits one of our carriers, they put it out of commission for months if not a year or so. If they hit a British one, the RN put the fire on the flight deck out, pipe 'sweepers man your brooms' and they are back in action within a couple of hours".
RAN clearly has spent all the CIWS money on soviet dancers. This has to be most awkward thing caught on camera.
I don't know. I think I would have preferred Cher turning back time. Surely that would be an obvious song to commission a ship to.
I don't know. I think I would have preferred Cher turning back time. Surely that would be an obvious song to commission a ship to.
I don't know, some of them were very well developed dancers. I am sure that many sailors would have enjoyed the performance.
sorry I' m still at the WTF stage
- Status