I would do this as a single thing. Replace the M61 with a GAU-12 or GAU-22, and give it the APDS ammo from the Bradleys.
I'm not sure "color" is as valuable as spectroscopy would be.
As light as CIWS and SeaRAM are, you'd think it'd be relatively trivial to add an upper-level sponson or expand a little deck space to make room for more. (yes, topweight may be an issue)
IIRC there usually are 4x+ Mk38s plus the CIWS plus SeaRAM. And in theory the Mk38Mod4s are AA capable but could use an on-mount radar to help with that instead of pure EOTS.
That's a CVN sort of outfit. The DDGs have 1 or 2 CIWS/SeaRAM/Mk 49 RAM (the specifics vary depending on the Flight, AEGIS baseline, and other factors) and 2 Mk 38.
In general yes, but for most of Cold War and post-Cold War era the general consensus was, that if more than one-two enemy missiles came into CIWS engagement envelope, then the ship is toast anyway. CIWS were mostly to defend against single missiles, that slipped through outer defenses. Putting more CIWS on warship weren't viewed as practical, because the benefits would be limited to narrow set of situations - like "more than one, but not more than three missiles slipped through". So it was assumed that putting efforts into area defense capabilities would be more practical than in CIWS.
Goalkeeper
You misunderstood me. My point was exactly that CIWS do not offer any group defense advantages. While long-range SAM sums up for the whole group - providing total capability "greater than the sum of its parts" - the CIWS protect only the unit they are installed on. They add nothing to other units defense. So from practical point of view, investing into long-range SAM's is more efficient than investing in CIWS, since long-range SAM's add to the group defense as a whole.
Well, its a result of arising drone threat of latest years mostly. Before that, the main concern was a high-end threats - cruise & ballistic missiles with sophisticated autonomous seekers.
Someone better tell the USN then, because there have been at least two instances of USN vessels being hit by friendly CIWS fire (Iwo Jima during an exercise and Missouri off Iraq).
ESSM Block 2 is active radar with mid-course guidance, so should be LOAL capable.
In essence gun look like Umbrella or Music note turned sideways
Well, they don't seem to have learned they need an FFG, so....
You don't need two guns for mixed APDS and HEI, you don't even need two barrels, just pattern-load the magazine, or if you want the option to choose, have the ammunition feeds go through a selector (the revolver section of a revolver cannon's breech could be set up to do this just by having two feed positions instead of one, and so could a gatling).
You're increasing the revolving and elevating mass and doing it high in the ship, with all that implies for mount size and weight and metacentric height. If you want to seriously increase the magazine size, drop it down a deck and fix it in place. Just as happens with larger calibre guns.
Fair point.
It's relatively easy to move the Mk38 guns around, and a destroyer should have 4 of them to deal with small boat/USV swarms (2 at the corners of the helo deck aft, 2 forward of the bridge, widest possible fields of fire).
I'm pretty sure RAM Block 2 can do over the shoulder, the guidance logic has been a thing since JHU APL cooked it up for SM-1 on the OHPs.
It's just the RAF/BAE Systems integrating the BAE Systems US APKWS/AGR-20F FALCO into the Typhoon, which is already in US service and being used heavily.
Right, now look at that arc: can't engage anything across the stern below 30deg. That is one hell of an improvement in arc over the "no OTS shots" version, though.
APKWS needs a separate laser designator, I'm not sure that the Mk38s have one of those. But yes, surface ships should have the equivalent (if not physically the same sensors) as the F-35 DAS and EOTS.
I suppose if you're also using 30mm Mk38s (or local-production equivalents) you might want to consider a 30mm CIWS for stowage convenience. But they're not using the same ammunition types generally. Mk38s in anti-drone mode would be using PFF/AHEAD, while your CIWS are using APDS or APFSDS. Different primary targets, different ammo.
Exactly. Early Phalanx is basically a bolt-on unit you can drop anywhere you have enough deck space. It's also a very lightweight mount, only 5 tonnes. So you can drop that anywhere and all it's got in the CIC is a 3 position switch and a fire button: Off/safe, Semi, and Auto.
I mean, the current Bradley 25mm APFSDS would do the job, and the GAU-22 is the same weight as the M61 vulcan (GAU-12 is only a little heavier). But 25x137 is a good bit heavier so the ammo drum makes the total weight to more like 6 tonnes.
Depends on the CIWS, sensors can be on-mount (eg Phalanx), off-mount (eg Barak), or it can share the ship's sensors (eg RAM).
The original Goalkeeper CIWS mount is 10 tonnes with a deck penetration. That imposes design limits that Phalanx does not.
Which is essentially what we saw the RN doing. Goalkeeper was evaluated as better, but Phalanx could fit in places (Type 42s) that were a problem for Goalkeeper, and when the decision was made to settle on one mounting, Goalkeeper lost out.
You're entirely right that is a big advantage of Phalanx. There are many cases where something you can pretty much just bolt to the deck and be done with is preferable. I was just comparing the two solely on their ability to engage incoming missiles.
That gets you into trouble with logistics simplicity. There's a reason even the USN only bought Phalanx instead of Goalkeeper or some other more advanced unit. Well, short of RAM/SeaRAM.
The replacement you're looking for is RAM and directed energy weapons. Gun based systems are increasingly becoming obsolete.
That basically gets us to RAM/SeaRAM or OTO 76mm Sovraponte. 76 rounds ready for the 76mm in the turret, and they're all guided. In a mount that weighs in about the same as Phalanx!
I think there's still a space for gun-based CIWS, even 20mm, as the last ditch stop before eating a hit.
There will always be a leaker that SeaRAM can't engage in time.
