that said, i am am kinda bewildered that for a relatively cheap and far more effective weapons system there isnt a 20mm autocannon ciws onboard. 

In high threat areas there are other response options already in play.  If you've got high speed boats coming in to 25mm range of a blue water asset,  then someone has already ferked up.

 

copy that. i value all your input into this, thanks.

 

clearly if you have to use these things as an area defence weapon then its obviously all gone pear shaped rather quickly.  but then again if that never ever happened, or we never credit an adversary with the intellect to defeat a layered defence plan, then it would always be a sunny smiling day and these systems wouldnt even exist. strewth, we could even give up the pintle mounted MG. im wondering that if 25mm range is a "ferkup", whats .50cal range called? im also wondering that if you do only have limited views of a target as it bobbs in a swell, then shouldnt each successful hit mean the most? doesnt all that prove my point?

 

they do now - so why do you think that they can't do the job which has been effectively done for yonks .  why do you want the skimmer to let the fast mover close the gap - the whole point of the USS Cole debrief was that they set the rules and kill them further out if they breach the zone. wtf would any ships commander want to let the fast mover in close? - It's not the shoot out at the OK Corral.  Helos have full coverage as they engage top down (the same principle as CAP)  I have no idea why you are obsessing about deck mounted guns which with every closing metre start to have movement or engagement issues. You say that you don't have faith in SOPs but you seem to have this view of how it should be done using a linear kinetic weapon when other choices can be far far better and used further out.

im reassured that the issue is at least acknowledged by defence, cos i was wondering! i really do value your  opinions, in the end im advocating a bigger punch were it will be critically needed, and im suprised i havnt had similar responses. cheers.

It got acknowledged by everyone when USS Cole got punched in the guts.  USS Cole (like the F-117 shootdown over Serbia) was a human factors failure where well established rules were not followed and people ignored good practice and let confidence dominate their entry into a threat area.  It shouldn't have happened but it did.  Giving USS Cole a bigger badder gun to whack the shooter wouldn't have made much difference because the decision flow was ferked.  Thats why the ROEs were strengthened, thats why "dismounts" are first respondents etc....

It's not an issue of bigger punch - it's an issue of making contact and supressing the threat enough to make it a negative result for the enemy.  you can add as many big guns as you like, but a rotor using tracking systems like are available with RAMICS will lock and kill evry time.  I can't understand your obsession with using a system just because of its calibre etc....  A big arse gun with a high ROF is useless if you can't track, lock and kill and the enemy has come in too close and the weapons safety features kick in and it locks up.  

in simple terms a bigger calibre is better - that does not translate to that a bigger gun is a better solution.

eg a .50cal on a helo riding shotgun is probably a whole lot more useful than a deckmounted 20-25mm when dealing with pirates - it all needs to be considered in context though.  Bear in mind that when the Iranians decided to play footsie with the USN and send in some Boghammers, the ship commander busted them with his main gun.  If the ROE's are robust, if the response layers are clear - then they aren't even going to get within 25mm deckmount range.