Modern Warship Defence (CIWS) Discussion

[Ainen]

Ummm... 4 CIWS (10M each tied to the ship radar) somehow adds up to 160M? You are the one who added up BBGX costs for the Pentagon right?

Dependent turrets with moderate rate of fire (lower than German 27mm RWS in fact) with no on-mount FC aren't good CIWS.
Keep in mind that ship isn't 100% rigid.

As such, it's more or less an AA gun. It's possible to solve much of that by adding optronics and tracking radar to individual guns, but price per unit will grow accordingly.

But in any case, it won't give you high instantaneous pK against supersonic threat - you either shoot missiles, or throw in 30mm walls of tungsten.

 

[Ainen]

Similar for seababy style drones. Just about any vessel with a ramp of some sort and rollers can easily deploy them.

Btw up to date usv threat looks like this, approximately. They can indeed be easily deployed by motherships - but they don't have to, their range is substantial.
Boxes in front are FPV drones, but nothing prevents a richer nation to carry around OtH ATGMs, tactical rockets and such.

 

[Mk38]

View attachment 820921
Btw up to date usv threat looks like this, approximately. They can indeed be easily deployed by motherships - but they don't have to, their range is substantial.
Boxes in front are FPV drones, but nothing prevents a richer nation to carry around OtH ATGMs, tactical rockets and such.

Sea baby style drones have already been shown to have substantial ranges themselves, but no gun is going to be an effective weapon against USVs that have ASMs same issue we’ve had for decades with manned small boats and why mk38s were pretty much nearly pointless the second they were introduced. For surface targets they’re only good against suicide boats.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

$40 million against $1 billion frigates more like it.

Phalanx is outdated not for function but because of how it is implemented. The radar should be fixed plates spread out in multiple directions, serving multiple guns. The barrel should be measuring velocity out the barrel for adjusting delivery. There are many teasons Millenium comes out a better use of resources. You could have two for the price of a Phalanx.

SeaRAM demonstrates why this is incorrect. The problem with Phalanx is it's a 20mm gun system. It is inherently limited in engagement range and capability. This was fine when the threat environment was Styx and Shaddocks, it is not fine when you're dealing with higher end, even contemporary ASMs like Kitchen (though in its defense it was supposed to be a temporary solution but everyone knows there is nothing more permanent than a patch job). Destroying a missile was chancy given hardened and armored penetrator warheads and even if it was destroyed the missile was still liable to cause significant damage to the ship through fragments.

The self contained fire control is a feature, not a bug. It is plug and play and can operate if other ship systems are knocked out. SeaRAM corrects the chief issue of Phalanx, that being its lethality, and compared to other RAM launchers can operate independently (which was the concern while Aegis could only perform either BMD or air defense).

Guided weapons (missiles or projectiles) provide vastly superior engagement capability (range, pk, engagement times) for manuevering and difficult to hit targets.

Against drones the primary competition is against lighter RWS' like Typhoon and this, as always, depends on the threat environment and other more technical elements such as integration.

 

[spikedpsycho]

Tether drones designed to fly above and away from the warship. When in flight mode besides own sensors, it can parlay data from ships combat system and be permitted to respond; if miniature missiles cant intercept, the ships weapons can

 

[Scott Kenny]

This was the start of the discussion - @Scott Kenny proposed 4 CIWS on a ship. The point is that it's a lot of money, directly comparable to primary mission systems.

I proposed a pair of RAM and a pair of guns.

 

[MadRat]

I proposed a pair of RAM and a pair of guns.

FF/FFG: 2-3 CIWS guns, 1-2 SeaRAM, 1-2x 76 mm, ESSM (FFG)
DDG: 3-4 CIWS guns, 2-3 SeaRAM, 1-2x 5" main gun, 1x DEW, SM-x
CGN: 4-6 CIWS guns, 3-5 SeaRAM, 1-2x 6.1", 2x DEW, SM-x, CPS
BBGN: 6-8 CIWS guns, 5-8 SeaRAM, 2-4x 6.1", 4x DEW, SM-x, CPS

 

[A_Random_Guy]

FF/FFG: 2-3 CIWS guns, 1-2 SeaRAM, 1-2x 76 mm, ESSM (FFG)
DDG: 3-4 CIWS guns, 2-3 SeaRAM, 1-2x 5" main gun, 1x DEW, SM-x
CGN: 4-6 CIWS guns, 3-5 SeaRAM, 1-2x 6.1", 2x DEW, SM-x, CPS
BBGN: 6-8 CIWS guns, 5-8 SeaRAM, 2-4x 6.1", 4x DEW, SM-x, CPS

How are all those extra mounts going to meaningfully improve the capability of the ship? Your PK against single threats will only marginally improve and against saturation threats VLS are better because you can engage at longer range and space the engagement out.

What mission or scenario justifies the inclusion of them?

 

[Sferrin]

How are all those extra mounts going to meaningfully improve the capability of the ship? Your PK against single threats will only marginally improve and against saturation threats VLS are better because you can engage at longer range and space the engagement out.

What mission or scenario justifies the inclusion of them?

On big ships it's for coverage. You're not going to have any CIWS on the centerline of a carrier so they put them around the perimeter.

 

[MadRat]

What mission or scenario justifies the inclusion of them?

RFI/RFP. Promote competition using predefined criteria. Let industry compete. Much of the current problems are from vendor lockins.

I wouldn't even say it has to be 76 mm on FF/FFG if they can make anything from 57 mm to 90 mm work for a main gun. The 35 mm isn't a perfect solution. Maybe 40 to 50 mm is better. Let industry come up with solutions. Because what we have right now is a broken system making safe choices with little to no increases in capability.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

On big ships it's for coverage. You're not going to have any CIWS on the centerline of a carrier so they put them around the perimeter.

Except none of these ships are CV(N)s with design quirks that they bring and the most anyone really puts is 1-2 weapons in each quadrant (such as Type 003 which has 4 30mms and 4 HHQ-10s one each on the port/starboard bows and quarters).

For a conventionally laid-out ship a pair of centerline RAM launcher will provide the same coverage as a dozen jumbled over the hull. Similarly while there are blind spots for beam mounts these still have wide angles and placement should be determined by how the ship orientates during an engagement (for example to minimize signature, bring radars and ECM to bear, etc). Cuing and lock-on-after launch also mean that conventional arcs of fire are less important for weapons like RAM and ESSM (the later of course can be loaded in VLS and RAM can do the same though through ExLS).

RFI/RFP. Promote competition using predefined criteria. Let industry compete. Much of the current problems are from vendor lockins.

RFI/RFP is not a mission. If the criteria of the theoretical requests justifies the inclusion of so many mounts then specify it and explain your reasoning.

 

[Mk38]

How are all those extra mounts going to meaningfully improve the capability of the ship? Your PK against single threats will only marginally improve and against saturation threats VLS are better because you can engage at longer range and space the engagement out.

What mission or scenario justifies the inclusion of them?

Yes because throwing more million dollar missiles at cheap drones is the lesson we’ve learned after the last 4 years of conflict in Europe and the Middle East…

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Yes because throwing more million dollar missiles at cheap drones is the lesson we’ve learned after the last 4 years of conflict in Europe and the Middle East…

Putting a ship in a position where it's going to be swarmed by drones within gun engagement range as a matter of doctrine is frankly insane. For singular leakers in a controlled manner, sure let the guns handle them. If you want to deal with swarms use helicopters, aircraft, and/or UAS armed with APKWS or other similar cheap guided weapons.

Costs might be marginally higher but risks are so much lower it isn't even a competition.

In a related note more CIWS will not help combat a spread out swarm but a Combat Air Patrol will. You're spending tons to protect against one specific kind of situation that you should try to avoid in the first place.

 

[Mk38]

Except none of these ships are CV(N)s with design quirks that they bring and the most anyone really puts is 1-2 weapons in each quadrant (such as Type 003 which has 4 30mms and 4 HHQ-10s one each on the port/starboard bows and quarters).

For a conventionally laid-out ship a pair of centerline RAM launcher will provide the same coverage as a dozen jumbled over the hull. Similarly while there are blind spots for beam mounts these still have wide angles and placement should be determined by how the ship orientates during an engagement (for example to minimize signature, bring radars and ECM to bear, etc). Cuing and lock-on-after launch also mean that conventional arcs of fire are less important for weapons like RAM and ESSM (the later of course can be loaded in VLS and RAM can do the same though through ExLS).


RFI/RFP is not a mission. If the criteria of the theoretical requests justifies the inclusion of so many mounts then specify it and explain your reasoning.

And yet burkes were still built for 4 close in gun systems.
LCSes designed to carry 1 57, 2 30s and a (sea)ram.
French version of FREMM currently in service mounts missile based CIWS, and 2 20mm guns.

So 3+ close in weapon systems is currently pretty standard for surface combatants.
Why not upgrade guns that are almost useless in AAW to be dual purpose gun mounts?

And on larger ships if you do that you that now you have 4-8 CIWSes.

Newer US ships will be mounting mk38 mod4s which are much more effective in AAW than the previous mks. I still wouldn’t call them true CIWS, but they’re borderline.

There’s no reason not to just have more true CIWS mounts. More modern, more effective CIWS, but still more.

 

[Mk38]

Putting a ship in a position where it's going to be swarmed by drones within gun engagement range as a matter of doctrine is frankly insane. For singular leakers in a controlled manner, sure let the guns handle them. If you want to deal with swarms use helicopters, aircraft, and/or UAS armed with APKWS or other similar cheap guided weapons.

Costs might be marginally higher but risks are so much lower it isn't even a competition.

In a related note more CIWS will not help combat a spread out swarm but a Combat Air Patrol will. You're spending tons to protect against one specific kind of situation that you should try to avoid in the first place.

You don’t always get to determine when and where engagements occur.
Russia’s fleet has suffered miserably from drones.
The US has had to shoot down many drones in the Red Sea.
I haven’t seen much about the types of and numbers of munitions the navy has intercepted around the SoH.

And again as mentioned above, it’s not hard to load a trawler with shahed style drones, sail up to within a few dozen miles or less from the target ship, and launch them…

 

[Felocie]

And again as mentioned above, it’s not hard to load a trawler with shahed style drones, sail up to within a few dozen miles or less from the target ship, and launch them…

Fantasy lmao

 

[Felocie]

FF/FFG: 2-3 CIWS guns, 1-2 SeaRAM, 1-2x 76 mm, ESSM (FFG)
DDG: 3-4 CIWS guns, 2-3 SeaRAM, 1-2x 5" main gun, 1x DEW, SM-x
CGN: 4-6 CIWS guns, 3-5 SeaRAM, 1-2x 6.1", 2x DEW, SM-x, CPS
BBGN: 6-8 CIWS guns, 5-8 SeaRAM, 2-4x 6.1", 4x DEW, SM-x, CPS

And people accuse the USN of having "gold plated requirements"...

 

[Mk38]

Fantasy lmao

What fantasy? You don’t think a trawler can be loaded with a pair of shahed launchers?
You don’t think a merchant ship can be loaded with shahed launchers?

The US is already working on containerized drone swarms. What makes you think China isn’t?

https://migflug.com/jetflights/blitzbox-darpa-wants-drone-swarms-hidden-in-shipping-containers/

 

[A_Random_Guy]

There’s no reason not to just have more true CIWS mounts. More modern, more effective CIWS, but still more.

Cost, weight, power, sustainment, procurement timelines, and manning requirements are pretty big reasons as to why this is fundamentally untrue.

You don’t always get to determine when and where engagements occur.

And again as mentioned above, it’s not hard to load a trawler with shahed style drones, sail up to within a few dozen miles or less from the target ship, and launch them…

Sure, but that's why you have VLS cells, they allow you to handle saturation attacks. Is it a positive cost/exchange ratio? No, but losing a multi billion dollar ship isn't either.

Keep in mind the costs to equip additional mounts are multiplied over the fleet. You may find yourself paying 3 billion to outfit all your ships to that standard just to save 300 million in missiles during the engagements it would've helped. Penny-wise pound-foolish.

 

[Mk38]

And people accuse the USN of having "gold plated requirements"...

That’s already the basic small caliber gun armament of most warships for the like 40 years. Just split between air defense guns and surface defense guns…3-4

 

[Mk38]

Cost, weight, power, sustainment, procurement timelines, and manning requirements are pretty big reasons as to why this is fundamentally untrue.

Sure, but that's why you have VLS cells, they allow you to handle saturation attacks. Is it a positive cost/exchange ratio? No, but losing a multi billion dollar ship isn't either.

Keep in mind the costs to equip additional mounts are multiplied over the fleet. You may find yourself paying 3 billion to outfit all your ships to that standard just to save 300 million in missiles during the engagements it would've helped. Penny-wise pound-foolish.

So…you empty your limited magazine space to deal with drones that guns can shoot down much cheaper, and leave yourself empty and unable to respond to missile attacks that those same guns would struggle to deal with at best, and be completely outclassed by at worst?

You’re a tactical genius!

A single container could launch 120+ drones, from over the horizon.

https://www.twz.com/news-features/s...r-packing-126-kamikaze-drones-hits-the-market

So yeah, have fun using 120 of your 150ish SAMs to counter the threat of a single armed merchant cruiser style vessel.

Might cost $3b to outfit the whole fleet with 4+ CIWS systems but that’s a lot cheaper than losing a $3b+ ship, paying out death and disability benefits for possibly hundreds of sailors.

 

[Felocie]

What fantasy? You don’t think a trawler can be loaded with a pair of shahed launchers?
You don’t think a merchant ship can be loaded with shahed launchers?

You think a trawler is getting within a few miles of a DDG during wartime and then launching swarms of Shaheds unimpeded??? Do you think the Navy is utterly useless???

That’s already the basic small caliber gun armament of most warships for the like 40 years. Just split between air defense guns and surface defense guns…3-4

3-4 Phalanx CIWS and 2-3 SeaRAM (why not Mk 49 atp?) for one DDG is normal to you?

 

[Mk38]

You think a trawler is getting within a few miles of a DDG during wartime and then launching swarms of Shaheds unimpeded??? Do you think the Navy is utterly useless???

3-4 Phalanx CIWS and 2-3 SeaRAM (why not Mk 49 atp?) for one DDG is normal to you?

yes. It’s literally been happening.

What, is the warship going to run away from every trawler or merchant ship that gets within 40 miles?

We’re not talking about drones with a 5 mile range. We’re talking about drones like the hero 120 with a 37 mile range. Shaheds with ranges of hundreds or a thousand miles.

Keeping every merchant and trawler capable of launching such a swarm at a 40 mile distance while remaining on station to do your mission is going to be damn near impossible.

 

[Mk38]

This thing could easily get well within shahed range, launch a swarm of drones, watch you empty your missile magazine to shoot them down, and then launch a handful of missiles for the kill.

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/07/ch...tic-drone-launcher-vertical-launching-systems

 

[Ainen]

That’s already the basic small caliber gun armament of most warships for the like 40 years. Just split between air defense guns and surface defense guns…3-4

Most aren't CIWS though.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

So…you empty your limited magazine space to deal with drones that guns can shoot down much cheaper, and leave yourself empty and unable to respond to missile attacks that those same guns would struggle to deal with at best, and be completely outclassed by at worst?

You’re a tactical genius!

If the threat environment is so hot and your support options are so limited why are you there in the first place? Systems do not exist in vacuums, they are to fit within a broader concept of operations.

That’s already the basic small caliber gun armament of most warships for the like 40 years. Just split between air defense guns and surface defense guns…3-4

This is Motte and Bailey. The current discussion was around the figures MadRat gave which signifcantly exceed that. I do not believe you are arguing in good faith.

 

[Felocie]

There is a much broader conversation to be had about how good a Shahed actually is here, particularly with regard to it's susceptibility to electronic warfare. That aside, what you're arguing is that:

1) a foe detects and tracks a destroyer or other surface ship without the platform itself being detected
2) that a foe loads a significant number of anti ship weapons (be it OWA drones or AShMs) aboard a ship such as a trawler or merchant without the US receiving any indication
3) that they are then able to launch this payload at the aforementioned destroyer or other surface ship, survive a counterattack, attrit the surface ship's defenses, and then kill it

Are we serious?

 

[Scott Kenny]

3-4 Phalanx CIWS and 2-3 SeaRAM (why not Mk 49 atp?) for one DDG is normal to you?

It should be. It isn't currently.

How many CIWS do you think a DDG needs?

 

[Felocie]

It should be. It isn't currently.

How many CIWS do you think a DDG needs?

No Phalanx, 1-2 Mk 49s or SeaRAM. This is coupled with existing CIGS and DEWs for all round protection.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No Phalanx, 1-2 Mk 49s or SeaRAM. This is coupled with existing CIGS and DEWs for all round protection.

How many CIGS, 4?

How many DEWs? Also, how much dwell time do the 600kw lasers need? Last I heard they were still multiple seconds dwell per target.

 

[DJK]

But in any case, it won't give you high instantaneous pK against supersonic threat - you either shoot missiles, or throw in 30mm walls of tungsten.

Why is it either/or? If you need a cloud of tungsten, its probably approaching minimum missile range. If its supersonic, this is last ditch but 30mm might not be enough.

As such, it's more or less an AA gun. It's possible to solve much of that by adding optronics and tracking radar to individual guns, but price per unit will grow accordingly.

Most 35mm systems seem to have a matching E/O system available. They quote good RPK ratios as it is, probably because the spread of lethal tungsten requires less precision than a single gattling gun bullet.

SeaRAM demonstrates why this is incorrect. The problem with Phalanx is it's a 20mm gun system. It is inherently limited in engagement range and capability.

I remember a previous story about a war with Iran where Phalanx was targeting friendly missiles being fired by the other ships instead of the enemy ASM. Probably fixed but what other issue could be caused by CIWS not being coordinated?

Guided weapons (missiles or projectiles) provide vastly superior engagement capability (range, pk, engagement times) for manuevering and difficult to hit targets.

But you can also expend all your missile stocks and be left without untill you race back to base for reloads. Swings and roundabouts.

How are all those extra mounts going to meaningfully improve the capability of the ship? Your PK against single threats will only marginally improve and against saturation threats VLS are better because you can engage at longer range and space the engagement out.

What mission or scenario justifies the inclusion of them?

An adversary that can challenge all your VLS loadout and test how you handle both multi-vector leakers and low cost drones that can increase the chances of those leakers slipping through. And drain your missile stock to the point of taking years to recover.

You're spending tons to protect against one specific kind of situation that you should try to avoid in the first place.

Well yes, USN should of course stay in port. On the odd occasion they venture out, they should be expected to have reasonable odds against a determined adversary.

Putting a ship in a position where it's going to be swarmed by drones within gun engagement range as a matter of doctrine is frankly insane.

There might be an insane guy you should call about that, good luck...

For singular leakers in a controlled manner, sure let the guns handle them. If you want to deal with swarms use helicopters, aircraft, and/or UAS armed with APKWS or other similar cheap guided weapons.

Leakers are by definition shit that is out of control, having broken through everything else including your APKWS loaded helicopter thats almost ready to take off.

Costs might be marginally higher but risks are so much lower it isn't even a competition.

How marginal is TAM being 10 times the cost per kill?

Newer US ships will be mounting mk38 mod4s which are much more effective in AAW than the previous mks. I still wouldn’t call them true CIWS, but they’re borderline.

There’s no reason not to just have more true CIWS mounts. More modern, more effective CIWS, but still more.

Exactly!

Most aren't CIWS though.

Yeah they just make you feel better until you need the actual CIWS.

How many CIGS, 4?

By CIGS we mean 57mm right? So a 35mm CIWS is obviously not replacing the larger gun, just handling the inner circle (as a last ditch) while 57mm and RAM are busy with the prefered 8km engagement range. This prevents

 

[A_Random_Guy]

How many CIGS, 4?

How many DEWs? Also, how much dwell time do the 600kw lasers need? Last I heard they were still multiple seconds dwell per target.

Current lasers are in the 50-60 kW range. A 600 kW range weapon could emulate its capability at ~3 times the range and at a given range cuts through 10 times faster (asterisks a plenty because of differences in focusing lenses and potential limitations on cooling architecture). The 2011 study cited in the 2013 Issues for Congress indicated this was sufficient for crossing ASMs (as opposed to just ship self defense).
https://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Navy-Lasers-CRS.pdf

As for other DEWs, 37 RMA SPY-6 faces (as on flt III Burkes) likely has average outputs in the 150-200 kW range (based on increased power draw and increased efficiency of GaN) so depending on engagement requirements they may be able to play a more active role.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

I remember a previous story about a war with Iran where Phalanx was targeting friendly missiles being fired by the other ships instead of the enemy ASM. Probably fixed but what other issue could be caused by CIWS not being coordinated?

You’re going to need a source for that claim.

But you can also expend all your missile stocks and be left without untill you race back to base for reloads. Swings and roundabouts.

“Guided weapons” includes guided projectiles (HVP, DART, along with various 50, 57, and 60mm projectiles), light missiles (RAM, Stinger, APKWS), and larger weapons. It was a statement about engagement kinematics so your reply bears little relevance.

An adversary that can challenge all your VLS loadout and test how you handle both multi-vector leakers and low cost drones that can increase the chances of those leakers slipping through. And drain your missile stock to the point of taking years to recover.

So they have the organization, ISR, and launch capacity to perform a saturation Time on Target attack with both drones and cruise missiles? Why is the ship operating in such a dangerous environment in the first place without support? That’s a planning failure.

Well yes, USN should of course stay in port. On the odd occasion they venture out, they should be expected to have reasonable odds against a determined adversary.

Is this what you genuinely think my argument around avoiding being in a close range saturation scenario was?

Leakers are by definition shit that is out of control, having broken through everything else including your APKWS loaded helicopter thats almost ready to take off.

“Leakers” was the wrong choice of word on my part. Sorry for the confusion.

How marginal is TAM being 10 times the cost per kill?

Follow APA guidelines and define the abbreviation before using it if it is not commonly used or easily found.

 

[Sferrin]

Except none of these ships are CV(N)s with design quirks that they bring and the most anyone really puts is 1-2 weapons in each quadrant (such as Type 003 which has 4 30mms and 4 HHQ-10s one each on the port/starboard bows and quarters).

So 8 CIWS on Type 003, and 9 on US CVNs. Just like I said. As for the other ships:

 

[MadRat]

Prince of Wales and Repulse were lessons in design discord through complacency.

 

[DJK]

You’re going to need a source for that claim.

Since my memory did not include APA references, you will just have to assess the chances of an "automatic mode" CIWS not coordinating itself with another ship (probably firing a Sea Sparrow) and at least one other Phalanx.

“Guided weapons” includes guided projectiles (HVP, DART, along with various 50, 57, and 60mm projectiles), light missiles (RAM, Stinger, APKWS), and larger weapons. It was a statement about engagement kinematics so your reply bears little relevance.

Good luck with 50mm and 60mm projectiles. My statement was about layered defence so the coice of weapons on the inner "last ditch" layer is not relevant to guided projectiles, which are relevant to the next layer. A 35mm CIWS is supposed to pick up what gets through, so that means it may be a multipurpose gun but its CIWS role is dealing with stuff thats already gone wrong. At this point we are trying to turn a sinking or massive fire into superficial damage.

So they have the organization, ISR, and launch capacity to perform a saturation Time on Target attack with both drones and cruise missiles? Why is the ship operating in such a dangerous environment in the first place without support? That’s a planning failure.

Again, your esteemed leaders do seem to have a knack for it.

Is this what you genuinely think my argument around avoiding being in a close range saturation scenario was?

I think your enemy will catch you out if you think you have planned perfectly. They have planned pretty well too, and sometimes they get lucky.

Follow APA guidelines and define the abbreviation before using it if it is not commonly used or easily found.

Typos are like that. FYI (means "for your information") a RAM stands for a "rolling airframe missile" and not related to a TLAM (tomahawk land attack missile).

 

[Mk38]

Most aren't CIWS though.

1/2 aren’t, and why not just make them all CIWS? Literally the mk38 and it foreign equivalents were massive wastes of money.

Jesus Christ on a stick this concept isn’t hard to understand

 

[Mk38]

If the threat environment is so hot and your support options are so limited why are you there in the first place? Systems do not exist in vacuums, they are to fit within a broader concept of operations.

This is Motte and Bailey. The current discussion was around the figures MadRat gave which signifcantly exceed that. I do not believe you are arguing in good faith.

What? How do you expect to win a naval war against a peer navy if you don’t sail forth, assert sea control, or at the very least sea denial?
Do you expect to win a naval war while sitting in port?

 

[Ainen]

1/2 aren’t, and why not just make them all CIWS? Literally the mk38 and it foreign equivalents were massive wastes of money.

Jesus Christ on a stick this concept isn’t hard to understand

At least one Russian corvette in black sea (with two ciws and no proper RCWS) was directly saturated(all ammo in ak-630 used out) by USVs. And more or less a major reason BSF is stuck is complete lack of COIN RCWS; they thought it's someone else's problem.
CIWS and RCWS have almost polar opposite priorities.

 

[Mk38]

There is a much broader conversation to be had about how good a Shahed actually is here, particularly with regard to it's susceptibility to electronic warfare. That aside, what you're arguing is that:

1) a foe detects and tracks a destroyer or other surface ship without the platform itself being detected
2) that a foe loads a significant number of anti ship weapons (be it OWA drones or AShMs) aboard a ship such as a trawler or merchant without the US receiving any indication
3) that they are then able to launch this payload at the aforementioned destroyer or other surface ship, survive a counterattack, attrit the surface ship's defenses, and then kill it

Are we serious?

Where did I say anything about the US not detecting the unload of armaments?
Where did I say anything about surviving a counter attack?

Do you think the PLAN cares if they lose a dozen dudes and a trawler if it mission kills a Burke? That’s a trade any sane navy would make in a heartbeat.

You’re literally just making random shit up to try to argue against