JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3

EW3 RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/17/2005 8:37:25 PM

Metalstorm is a cool technology. Your idea of loading differing barrels with different type rounds gives me an idea. The 20MM HEAB (if it's in production) was slated to cost $25/rd. What if you had a Metalstorm so say 3 barrels had rounds built to explode at say 2000 meters, 3 barrels for 1800 meters, 3 barrels for 1600 and so on. By having fixed ranges, I suspect it would keep cost/round down, and overcome the technical problems I heard they were having which, according to the blurb I read was the reason for it's demise.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/17/2005 9:01:40 PM

I can't see any reason as to why at an operational level it's not a deliverable concept. The main difficulty is going to be the loadout design. The delivery solution is already proven. Using the mass of a Phalanx as a yardstick of "physical volume" opportunity, you could mount 6 x 36 barrel weapons in the same space as a massed array. That would equate to close to 1300 rounds of graduated and specific fire. I've seen the results of the 36 barrel weapon against a vehicle - it turned it literally into a collander. Beacuse you can change the barrel rate of fire, the rate of volume fire, change the loadout etc... then it becomes a very strong point defence weapon. I just don't think that the company has had the right mix of directors on board as a deliverable solution could have been trialling years ago. I had some peripheral involvement some 4-5 years ago - and all they've done is through more digitised movies out and offered up more platform ideas. They should have focussed on getting one CTD to a working trials stage, shoved it in a hot zone and them moved from there. I have stuff all confidence in their exec management - seduced by R&D opportunities at the expense of fielding a deliverable, manageable solution.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust brain phart 4/17/2005 9:05:56 PM

"and all they've done is through more digitised movies out and offered up more platform ideas" should have been: "and all they've done is throw more digitised movies out and offered up more platform ideas" the other advantge will be once they work out how to load it with off boresight small PGM's. They've already trialled 60mm Rapid Fire mortars - a 60mm PGM even if it was vane controlled and unpowered would increase the opportunity to get tighter groups.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:JDAM and JSOW versus PHALANX CIWS 4/17/2005 9:10:51 PM

Maybe they just don't have the right connections :( Need to hire an ex-Admiral. (I've noticed that 2 of the 3 admirals my DE/FF produced work for defense companies, and I'm sure the third, the current CNO, is not going into the laundry business)

Quote Reply

doggtag CIWS targetting systems 4/17/2005 9:12:26 PM

Some of the current crop of fire control systems have effectively nearly eliminated these "dead zones" in the radar's tracking ability, by coupling them to (on or off-mount) electro-optical and IR/IIR systems that are very capable (one wonders of the "questionable" skipper who would allow his crew to train on sea birds...) of maintaining positive target locks (at least in training/tests.) Multi-mode systems using both radar and optical (even laser) tracking are more favored now (as on the latest Phalanx 1B and SeaRAM, Goalkeeper, and several other gun mounts.) As for using air-burst rounds to dispose of ASCMs (instead of direct impact as Phalanx and Goalkeeper use), it is achieved with ammo such as the 35mm AHEADS and 40mm & 57mm shells equipped with modern proximity fuzes like the Bofors 3P. It is doubtful that 20mm or 25mm HEAB would have a sufficient amount of fragment lethality (detonation cone) to be effective against any ASCMs. The German navy has recently been replacing some of its 20mm and 40mm guns with the MLG 27, a BK27mm gun in a naval mount. But, like Phalanx, it relies on its high rate of fire (1700 rpm) doing direct shell impacts on the incoming threat, rather than air bursts. Over at Rheinmetall-Detec's website, link listed under Weapons and Ammunition, Medium Caliber, Weapons there is a list of their autocannons. Take a look at the MLG 25, and see the quoted capabilities of its IR and optical systems (which can be incorporated into other mounts.) So, the current crop of naval EO/IR sighting systems is quite capable of eliminating any dead zones in your radar's close-in coverage. And only a suicidal pilot would do day raids in a radar-stealthy-but-visibly-obvious black B2: no, there it would be a nightime mission, and unless the aircraft has its own EO/IR targetting systems (which will put it fairly close to the ship's EO/IR detection range), the B2 will at least need target designation from somewhere/something else. This could be detected by the ship, as could the B2's thermal signature against the ambient background sky (all IR systems are not solely narrow field of view: a peripheral wide FOV system, composed of several detector camera arrays, around a ship would provide adequate, albeit fair-weather, performance, which would then allow the narrow field of view targetting systems to provide weapons acquisition. All of these current IR detectors are quite capable of separating a contact's thermal signature from the background sky- hence my suggestion of a skipper allowing his crew to use sea birds as targets. It's just that so far, nobody has fully developed such a passive shipborne WFOV system to implement it, using NFOV target acquisition systems only.)

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:CIWS targetting systems 4/17/2005 9:33:13 PM

FWIW - I would hope that all stealth aircraft would hardly ever use their radars, even in LPI mode. To maximize their value, they should maximize their use of passive detection, or be getting data from an AWACS/JSTAR, a sub in the area, a shore station, or even a satellite. Be interesting to know if IR detectors could see a B-2, but I suspect that's something we'll not know about for a few years. It would seem a cloudy day would favor the bomber. The blurb I heard about the HEAB was that they were going to use it on 30MM and above, so that kind of concurs with your point. The USN at one point was considering removing the 20MM from the CIWS and replacing it with an 11 round RAM. Apparently it fits it the same space. Have not seen it on anything in the web yet. Although the latest designs call for using the 21 round RAM for CIWS.

Quote Reply

EW3 RE:CIWS targetting systems 4/17/2005 10:00:46 PM

The really cool thing about this site is that people create situations that make you think. One major problem with any "gun" based CIWS is that you have to aim where your target is going at some time in the future since the bullet has a finite delivery time and is limited to a ballistic trajectory. Any kind of incoming weapon, say a cruise missile or a JDAM that gets updates can steer itself in 2 dimensions (possibly mess with speed to add another dimension) which makes a hit by the CIWS extrememly unlikely. In the case of a radar driven cruise missile, all you need is a scan or two to update the targets location, and then you can move in in 2 dimensions as long as you stay inside the aperture of the radar system. With CPU/memory being very cheap, it would be a no brainer to program it to do this. This may explain why the shift is to the RIM-116 RAM. It can maneuver to meet it's target

Quote Reply

blacksmith RE:CIWS targetting systems 5/2/2005 10:52:00 PM

LPI radar doesn't work well when the target is the ESM receiver. If you can detect the ship, it can detect you. LPI really prevents detection by 3rd party sensors.

Quote Reply

westwords2020 RE:CIWS targetting systems 5/13/2005 2:26:51 PM

What about course corrected shells like Bofors was once working on for its' 40mm guns and OTO Melara was working on for its' 76mm Super Rapid Compatto a command guided shell?

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3