JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/5/2005 5:35:52 PM

Short answer - yes. Almost short answer - unless you fired alot more than one.

Quote Reply

HJ RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/9/2005 11:05:06 PM

You're missing an important point...how would the JDAm or JSOW know where the target is if the CIWS is on a MOVING ship. NG is playing around with AMSTE to enable targeting of moving targets and did tests recently, but this hypothetical engagement has a fatal flaw in the supposition.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 3:35:24 AM

"NG is playing around with AMSTE to enable targeting of moving targets and did tests recently," It's more than playing around, it's about ready for use. The JDAM and many of our other newer systems (TACTOM,AMRAAM-D) are designed to take updates on the GPS coordinates of the target. Works against vehicles including tanks up to 50MPH.

Quote Reply

HJ RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 4:00:37 AM

First off, I do not agree that it is almost ready for use, but it certainly promising. The tests off Hawaii were very convincing, but you have to make it a program of record, have the appropriate AMSTE standoff platform that will send the updates and have the weapons data link installed in the weapons to receive same. What AMSTE does is not the same as your reference to TACTOM or AMRAAM D. Sending GPS updates is one thing, but AMRAAM still uses its terminal seeker for guidance. The updates simply substitute for the commands that the launch platform would normally send as geospatial coordinates in reference to itself and GPS was introduced because that off platform source can't provide it that way (Isuppose Tom Clancty should take partial credit for concept...see "A Debt of Honor"). AMSTE is really slick to be able to have update rate and precision necessary to provide TERMINAL guidance against a moving ground or surface target at sea and that is why it has garnered significant attention. It isn't that this is one of your "crash and burn" ideas (I read your C-130J MMA post just now...LOL x2), it's just there are really specific technical concepts and issues at play here so you just haven't got sufficent takeoff speed yet. I have been watching AMSTE with great interest as have others, but I don't think you've got the total concept here.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 4:50:03 AM

Glad you enjoy my "crash and burn" ideas. Shows an open mind on your part. Actually the AMSTE is not particularly complicated in principle. It's just a steady stream of updates using the data link kit on the JDAM (or any other weapon system using GPS targetting data such as TACTOM and AMRAAM-D). It's not brain surgery. There are many sources for that data not just a JSTAR, could come from a ship or from a grunt in the field. With the success we've seen already it's fairly far along the development curve. The real value in these systems is that they are stealthy. The longer the AMRAAM holds of using it's radar the greater the chance of a kill.

Quote Reply

HJ RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 12:04:49 PM

Oh, I am always open-minded, but also very pragmatic when it comes to trying to innovate and accelerate new technology. Believe me, I am fully aware of priciples of AMSTE (I work in this area and am close with AMSTE lead...we served together twice in past and he called me when he first started playing with it). But as simple as it can be demonstrated, no JDAM or JSOW sitting in magazines can receive the signal whether it is derived from JSARS, Global hawk or someone hiding in the weeds. That is why it's not "just around the corner" in terms of introduction. They are are equipped with the original kit that takes on coordinates prior to launch and goes within 13m (given certain DOP parameters are present). I am wincing at your characterization of "these systems" as being stealthy. maybe LPI is more appropriate. You're out of ground effect now, just need a bit more altitude. Cheers, HJ

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 1:50:50 PM

Considering the plethora of absurd (and I'd say insipid) threads around here about "US Invades Britain" or "F-22 vs. Eurofighter" you really seem to be jumping on this case over a debate about whether it could happen tomorrow or two years from now or five years. If you can't wrap your brain around the intent behind the question, then how about we all agree to broaden the topic to include the GBU-10s that a B-52 dropped, as well as the GBU-31s. We know CIWS (Phalanx,RAM, etc.) can protect a ship from anti-ship cruise missiles. How effective are they/could they be at preventing damage to the ship from precision guided bombs like LGBs and JDAMs (assuming for some reason they're coming down in the vicinity of the ship)? Displacedjim

Quote Reply

HJ RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 4:58:53 PM

Assuming you can target, then we're in realm of announcing to the world how to beat CIWS so I'm out of it. As to wrapping my brain around question, plenty of threads make wild departures from original question...and you have been smack dab in the middle of many of them form your armchair. This will be my last post then since you don't seem to appreciate the intent of my replies to focus on the technical and programmatic issues that I was highlighting. AMSTE is a DARPA funded effort with service interest. The proof of concepts work, BUT it is not a program of record and is a showstopper that tie sback to the original question. i wouldn't have said a thing if the original question was an LGB. Seeya

Quote Reply

HJ RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 5:01:45 PM

To you directly, displacedjim. Since Strategy page has no PM feature that I am aware of, you can meet me in personal side of ACIG.org or Combatedge and I'll tell you what I really think.

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/10/2005 9:34:13 PM

Ummm..., okay. I just signed up on ACIG under "displacedjim" Fire away, hero. Displacedjim

Quote Reply

HJ RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/11/2005 12:27:52 AM

Jim and I are now at peace thanks to off-line chat.

Quote Reply

displacedjim RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/11/2005 10:07:10 AM

It was my bad. I misinterpreted/assumed facts not in evidence regarding HJ's comments based on what I would mean if I'd said them. Briefing Rule No. 1: Know your audience! I apologize. Regarding the subject(s), I can only offer opinion, as I don't know any specifics regarding CIWS effectiveness. I'd take a guess and bet the more common reason a gun like Phalanx or an AK-630 shoots down an anti-ship cruise missile is because it shoots it down, i.e., it renders the missile non-flightworthy, as opposed to getting a catastrophic warhead kill. Missiles typically have their sensor in the nose, followed by their guidance system, battery, warhead, fuel, motor, and finally the fin actuators in the tail. Just one or two puny 20mm coming through the sensor and guidance unit surely must knock it out. But then, I seem to recall footage of warhead kills of missiles, so that must happen, too. Given the difference in trajectories and the fact it is following a near-ballistic flight path, I'd think about the only way to stop a bomb is by catastrophic warhead kill. In general, I thought the explosive fill for those missiles and bombs was actually pretty insensitive to shock, such that even some hits from a 20mm or 30mm wouldn't set it off. After all, if the fusing fails the bomb's a dud, even if it smashes through a ship (Falkands, anybody?) In the case of the older DU ammo for the Phalanx, maybe the polyphoric effect if a penetrator goes through the warhead casing and into the explosive can detonate it? A standard Mk84 bomb body is pretty thin steel even at the nose, but the BLU-109 casing is I think on the order of a couple inches thick at the nose. I'd guess that's reaching (and past) the limit of penetration capability for a 20mm or even a 30mm firing uphill at it--at least until it gets (too?) close. Also, while it seems likely to be better than getting a hole put in you, a bomb detonating topside is no picnic, either, and can still knock a ship out of the fight. In the case of a laser guided bomb, a hit in the (admittedly small) nose section could disable the laser sensor and blind the bomb, even if you don't detonate it. From that point on, it would go ballistic--of course, being so close to the ship by then, that may not matter and the bomb will probably still be a hit or a near miss. JDAMs, on the other hand, have their guidance and actuator package in the tail section, so warhead kill is the only way to go. Displacedjim

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/11/2005 10:24:18 AM

"JDAMs, on the other hand, have their guidance and actuator package in the tail section, so warhead kill is the only way to go." Unless you shoot it (JSOW/JDAM) in the arse via a top down attack from something already loitering... but that is way beyond the realm of "likely and possible" in a stand alone ship defence scenario. gets back to the issue of ensuring organic air is near and present as much as possible. shooting a JDAM/JSOW up the freckle would need liberal doses of prayer/luck/timing/opportunity all rolled into one. ;)

Quote Reply

Aurvangur RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/13/2005 6:46:49 PM

Anti-ship missles fly at Mach 0.8 Silkworm to Mach 2.2 for Sunburn. Bombs drops at 144 ft/s=Mach 0.13 (terminal velocity). Phalanx fires 20mm round with 15mm Tungsten or DU. 4500 rounds per minute. Phalanx range is estimated at 1 mile(this seems low). Super Rough Guestimates So it looks like we've got 36 seconds with the target in range which is 2700 rounds fired by the Phalanx assuming it is fired for the first intercept at the systems max range. An inch of steel protecting the bomb? With 15mm of DU it's not a problem. I can't imagine the bomb not going off but what do I know. Phalanx will have plenty of time to make multiple hits on the bomb. Bad news: At 1 mile or less at intercept, alot of that bomb shrapnel will still be hitting the ship. Might work but you better be ready for the rain of debris. The debris alone might cripple a Chinese landing craft. Bad time to be on deck.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/13/2005 7:13:19 PM

"Bombs drops at 144 ft/s=Mach 0.13 (terminal velocity)." where did you get that number? it's usually defined by v=at^2 where a=9.8m/s^2 t = time. so after 10 seconds v = 980m/sec. That's a first approximation good for short time intervals, beyond that you have to deal with Stokes Law, Reynolds numbers, and drag coefficients. I'd guess it's get up to around M.8 or so. Interestingly one of the SDBs (Diamondback?) has "wings" that it retracts or disposes of just to reduce drag and increase terminal velocity.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - February 10, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us