the area of transit defines the ROE and protection level for that transit (thats one of the results of the post USS Cole assessment)

 

they also have Phalanx

they also have organic CAP via rotors

they also have light skimmers (eg RHIBS) deployed depending on area of transit.

 

the rules changed after USS Cole, so I'm not sure why you think that they have less capability to deter - let alone the fact that the area of transit heavily influences tolerance and response levels.

 

 

 

 

think about it carriers never changed there mtoe on small arms ,, I'm just saying phalanx is being phased out hellos give a little support, but lets get some fire power on there some 30mm the new 57mm that give you better dead space protection.

dead space protection in transit or in port?

as I said prev, the SOPs for vessel protection are defined by the location.

if the issue is one of transit in restricted waters, then that also is defined by location.  In restricted transit areas, the organic air will be up, and local authorities are also involved.

 

I'm confused as to what general scenario you have in mind.

 

You can stick a mini typhoon on anything, the issue is relevance in light of other systems already in play. - or do you just want cross calibre overwatch/overmatch?

 

   

There are several things to consider, space, logistics, and extra crew. Also if something gets past it's escorts, and air cover there is little chance anything can be done about it any way. A small craft with explosives would also present a minimal threat to a carrier, other than having to send the bosn?s mates over the side to repaint her.

The lesson from WWII was that you could not depend entirely on your screening destroyers.  The only place to stop the leakers is from the target itself.  That said, I can't much imagine a boat or small plane threat that could deal with a Phalanx.  And anything with a gun, that seems to drive the opening comment, will be toast against fighters, helos and the destroyer screen.  A carrier is not going to get into a gun fight with a surface combatant.

now somethings got to be wrong with this, they have missiles and then they have small arms nothing in between. i know they can out run any boat in the world in the open waters but what about in the straits. they shoulnt rely on the destroyers to protect them. they are just asunder guned if you call it that. lets get some real weapons back on our ships..

I know that the RAMs are supposed to be better, but I'm opposed to taking the Phalanx off, exactly because it can be used against thing besides a/c.

As for the suggestion on installing TOWs, there may have been some changes in the last decade or two, but when I knew 'em, TOW wasn't very useful shooting across water due to the guidence wires shorting out.

What would be the advantage of a TOW over a Phalanx?  TOWs are armor peircing.  There is no armor on a small boat or plane.  A Phalanx would turn either into matchsticks, and probably at greater range.

 

Not sure how effective a RAM would be.  RAM uses a Sidewinder hot spot tracker.  Would it be able to reliably pick out a boat?