You're looking at the problem the wrong way round.
Ok but you will have a lower pK with a Mk 49 and a Phalanx than just having two Mk 49s, and on top of that the angles at which the Phalanx can engage are severely restricted when compared to RIM-116 (specifically Block II missiles with their upgraded control system). RAM has a substantially higher pK on leakers than Phalanx, indeed Phalanx is essentially unable to engage certain modern missiles threats altogether where RAM can
This also doesn't really make sense. What constrains SeaRAM from engaging where Phalanx can?
Replying to this here since its probably not news.
Gun based CIWS has gotten a new lease on life with programmable munitions, but even then calibers below 35 mm really don’t have the reach to make things safe against fast movers.
40mk4 should replace the the mk38s including mod4s on anything larger than 8k tons in my opinion.
I think theres also reliability and other factors of both the mount and gun, in addition to the sensors. If theres a below deck magazine and a high performance mount with low maintenance, that gives you better availability. I don't know if theres a 30mm mount like that, but i suspect a 40mk38 is not it either. I see any calibre 40mm or below as close-in defence, and 57mm as further reach with guided projectiles.
Yes it's an issue but I'm not expecting Mk38 to engage high-divers. More to the point, I'm expecting the 76mm guns to engage Shaheds etc with DART before the high-divers start their terminal dive.
Again, using 76mm as CIWS, not as main battery.
You mean the Mk47 with programmable-fuzed 40x53mm?
Mk45 has an elevation of 65 degrees. Mk38 mods2-3 have an elevation of 55 degrees. The mount was also intended to fend off helicopters that stumble in too close…
Anything that gets past your 57mm should face a close-in gun, so elevation is relevant. If you dont want a guy on deck reloading or fixing a jam with the worst possible timing, thats relevant too.
Just give me 4 mk110s, and two RAMs.
What "DART" is that? A guided projectile thats actually fielded? BAE's ORKA has only 10km range (so similar to RAM), so preume you refer to the NG projectile that I could only find a development contract for. It never saw any claims of it being useful for missile defence, although you would think thats the point of developing it.
RAM isnt an economical swarm defence, so an inner gun layer still makes sense.
STRALES is the export name for it. Italian Navy has had it since 2014 under the name DAVIDE.
Sure, we can make that argument.
Oh yes of course, I was trying to think of a US munition. But I didn't know OTO Melara made a 57mm version, and I doubt USN would buy it. Still cant understand why MADFIRES never eventuated.
If they are powerful enough yes they are. But until they are proven to be extremely reliable and effective at those power levels, i would want a last-ditch gun on each quadrant as backup. Probably Bofors 40mk4.
I have only ever been talking 76mm.
Well, the AESA radar is pushing 5megawatts peak output. Strobe that into a narrow beam and see how much of a drone's electronics get cooked.
Shaheds are large enough where the current Phalanx versions could reliably tear them to shreds but their range is limited so they can only really protect the ship its on and nothing else. The really small drones might be a problem to deal with unless you've got something with smart proximity fuzed ammunition and the right sensors to detect the target. Ideally we'll be able to reliably microwave and laser those to death in the near future.
They are but for the wrong reason IMO. Their stated reasoning is that 57mm throws a lot of flak up, more weight per minute than anything short of a 5".
The problem is that the USN didn't see the 76mm as a CIWS, they saw it as a main gun for small ships. The Italians saw it as a replacement for the Bofors Fast Forty.
No they’re not. They’re pretty much a completely obsolete weapon.
Nobody was talking about 76mm, we were talking about guided rounds for 57mm such as ALAMO and ORKA. 57mm gun already planned for the USN project in this thread.
Theoretically possible but the radar has other jobs to do, and potentially not designed to maintain peak output long enough to cook a drone (which would be shielded if HPM becomes a common defence). Pulsed lasers are looking promising though.
That doesnt follow. The inner layer needs guns with fast traverse etc and high rate of fire to counter manoeuvring targets. Its not either/or, its layered. As a threat leaks past the outer layers, you aim another weapon at it as each comes into range. A really nasty future drone/missile/bomb should face the full spectrum of defences, and a swarm should have the bulk of its numbers destroyed at range while lasers and small calibre deals with the leakers.
Thats the whole point of CIWS, and modern CIWS need 3P or timed airburst smart rounds. They protect the ship so that other weapons can reach out and protect the area.
You would never ignore the guided rounds on a modern gun. Even if you want cheaper rounds for slow/surface targets, missile defence absolutely requires guided rounds beyond 4 or 5km effective range. Even then, you will use more unguided rounds per target the further out you engage it.
But its a far more beautiful gun
Hence there's more logic to having a smaller calibre that can be mounted in positions you cant fit the 57mm, like on a corner to get a wide overlapping field of fire..
Slew to cue?
The one place I know you can stick a 76mm Sovraponte but not a 57mm is on top of a helicopter hangar. Because the Sovraponte sits entirely on top of the deck with no penetration at all.
The real nuisance of course is that 57mm Mk110, OTO 76mm Strales/DART, and RIM-116 all engage at about 8km versus flying targets.
Problem: way back in WW2 it was discovered that a 40mm 0.9kg shell wasn't big enough to kinematically stop an incoming kamikaze/guided missile. Even if you killed the pilot/guidance the missile would still travel a ballistic course and hit the ship.
And maybe some lasers will have similar effective range. Combat system should choose the most appropriate weapon, also considering the minimum range of each weapon.
But thats more related to ballistic missiles now, to some extent a cruise missile might also retain enough energy when it gets close enough, but at that point your 57mm is still firing when the 40mm starts. Its also the reason you need a timed airburst with lots of tungsten pellets, not just ordinary shrapnel.
Its more about the spread of tungsten than amount of explosive so similar idea, but its not either/or.
I would layer the lasers as well, so add a few smaller ones on platforms above each CIWS in addition to the 2 main lasers. The CIWS probably 35mm or 40mm to be as destructive as possible considering its in asdition to the medium calibres. For USN the 57mm replaces 76 and I cant change that, but they need a DART equivalent for it. HPM is probably a panel thats part of the EW system with some kind of separation or integration to avoid interference with other sensors.
But where are those supersonic sea-skimmers clearing the horizon to be detected and then engaged?
It really isn't that simple, because apparently the 76 mm throws out more or bigger fragments, which means a better intercept chance.
The 57mm throws nearly 2 for each 76 shell.
https://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123.php
They all do different targets, though.
I'm barely convinced that 2x RAM launchers is enough for protecting a Destroyer, let alone a battleship!
I'd prefer to keep developing the rails, but yes a "battleship" should probably have at least 2 main turrets. FFS even the old Spruance class DDs had two 5" guns!
The 76mm Vulcano is a 5kg shell, broadly comparable to an 81mm mortar shell in effect. It will pin down people.
My understanding is yes, because the missiles have to be spun up before launch. And that takes a couple of seconds between shots. (Visible on test launch videos)
2 RAMs are probably able to fire into either broadside. 4 RAMs will put 3 into either broadside, plus whatever the missiles can do for over-the-shoulder shots.
Yes and no.
