...and contemporary US design of a tank had 0.25...0.98". So what?
Correction: Iranian anti-ship ballistics were guided (apparently with electro-optical seeker tracking constrast spot of the ship). Due to their supersonic speed, they were presumed to be a major threat.
Everyone else is busy adding Mk 38 Mod 4* equivalents for counter UAV/USV roles. Even if you prefer something longer ranged for the counter-missile role, the counter drone role is growing in a different direction that demands magazine depth, not simply extended range.
All of the missiles that have been launched against the US in the Middle East the last few years have been derived either from Chinese or Russian/soviet missiles. Even if they’re based on 40 or 50 year old designs, the Neptune missiles that sank Moskva is based on a 40+ year old Soviet design (I was mistaken and said it was based on the harpoon earlier, apparently the confusion is from the kh-35 being referred to as harpoonski informally) so it’s not like Ukraine threw some cutting edge super hypersonic stealth missiles at it.
I thought that was more a matter of LCS was the only thing with enough spare room to stick the Commodore and his entourage.
Sure, it'll fit into a 12,000ton ship that otherwise looks like a Burke with a 15m stretch amidships.
Navy Pentagon disagrees with you. They want CPS on everything that could hold Tomahawks.
Remember that Phalanx and Mk38mod4s are the equivalent of the hand-swung 20mm guns in WW2. Just short of useless but makes the crews feel better because something is still shooting back.
Exactly!
Do you have a source for that laptop claim?
The unproven technology of DEWs? The technology that again isn’t actually operational? And probably won’t be for 5-10 years at best?
Not directly, no.
Zumwalts are 16ktons, boss.
Okay, my point for the Mk38 mount battery was that it would have auto-targeting capabilities on the mount and would be able to function in full auto even if ship's power went out.
My thinking was 4-6 Mk38s. One on each corner of the ship covering over 180deg of arc, and if you have 6 the two extra are amidships broadside with 180 arcs.
Thats what I'm saying. But there is a need for updated CIWS, and it should be dual feed so that it can also replace the Mk38 in the surface role. That allows you to put one on each corner for overlapping feilds of fire, and to design a version with below dwck magazines...
I don't know that I agree with that, because your CIWS needs a much higher rate of fire than your anti-USV gun, as well as likely needing different fields of fire.
Exactly. The redundancy is part of the point.
I think that will be a hard sell to the USN. It's been too long since the Bofors 40mm turrets were the standard close in AA.
Yes lets build something else instead, cold war finished long ago. Why compare with Burkes at all? Compare with something you would build as a future DDG replacement.
Mayb call the Flt1 the strike destroyer and find a way to di it.
CPS just makes it even larger. If you can do that with a modular hull stretch (not on a Burke) or swapping out a Mk41 for GVLS it might allow you to simply trade Harpoon for CPS as needed per mission.
Lets just call it a starship.
Echoes of American car industry!
Wondered if you would notice that...
Wasn't Moskva itself pretty ancient?
They werent even mounted on the same part of the hull. The more likely tradeoff would have been 127mm vs 2 × 57mm.
But Mk38 probably not idea as CIWS, at minimum it should compete with other CIWS systems. I believe Mellenium Gun had a battery and optional radar on mount, but only fire control radar, not a search radar.
DDG(X) put CPS in a hull stretch module that could be inserted into the design as needed. Dont know if you could have added both an air defence and CPS moduke together.
I wouldn't be suprised to see the GVLS replace APM on new ship designs.
But failsafe for the maintenance guys! The off switch should not be accessible without disabling the gun...
Or might be more like 120° for an amidships ciws and more for a Mk38 mounted closer to the edge. I think you could justify 4-6 CIWS and 3 or 4 Mk38.
Any long range gun is almost useless without guided projectiles.
Agree a 30mm mount could cover angles the CIWS cant reach. This partly the role that historically would have been 12.7mm point defence.
I presume you mean 20mm CIWS like Phalanx. As the calibre and airburst increases the ROF tends to get slower.
CIWS on centreline doesn't make sense, they should be on the corners for better redundancy overlaps. Not an old 20mm thing. You could surfacemount guns like Mk38 on sponsons amidships or flightdeck, but thats more as point defence.
You might not be able to mount them in ideal CIWS positions. A layered system on the other hand implies that a 57mm guided weapon would be an equivalent comparison to RAM with similar range. Open to having both, maybe with the RAM on a raised platform behind the Mk110 as a laser placeholder
BAE can probably make a good argumwnt for 40mm though. You might have been thinking of Bofors 40Mk4 instead of Mk110. I support both for different roles, one using 3P and a more surface oriented ammo and the 57mm with ALAMO and a future MAD-FIRES equivalent guided air defence round.
Mk110 should be the gun based CIWS
small caliber CIWS or CIWS with no air busting and short range ammunition needs hyper high RoF.
Mk110 is a wasted opportunity and a LOT of space as the only close-in gun. Also, i doubt the slew rate is so impressive that it can take on multiple simultaneous targets with fewer but bigger guns and there would be demand for 57mm fire against a wider range of threats.
2 mk110s is likely good enough, and the slew rate is perfectly fine for engaging multiple targets.
I’d do 1 Fore 1 aft, same with RAM, and 4 mk38s 2 per side
No, the only things left of the gun systems are the deckhouses that hid the barrels when not actively firing. IIUC those were left for RCS reasons.
Because we still have a bunch of brand new Burke IIIs, and failed to build either Zumwalts or CG21s 20 years ago.
So? If you can't fit both CPS tubes and gun the USN says it fails requirements.
Mk38 is not ideal as a CIWS, it's barely capable if you give it a radar. But given the sheer numbers of Shaheds people are throwing around I want more guns on new ships. Because 30x173 or even the 40x173 for more HE/fragments is adequate versus Shaheds.
I really hope so, the APM/APT is terribly space-inefficient. On the other hand, it does give pretty solid protection to each set of tubes inside, because it's submarine-hull-thick HY80. And the HY-series steels were developed from the STS battleship armor plate.
Correct. Gun set at "safe" in CIC, Danger tag hung. Unscrew the access panel and physically disconnect a single electrical connection, what the aircraft guys call a "cannon plug". The kind that has many pins and a huge outer screw connection. This plug (or plugs if the size for one plug is absurd) has power from battery to everything on the mount (ship power goes into the battery, not direct to mount). Radar, EOTS, traverse and elevation motors, gun motor, everything. Danger tag hung on the plug(s). Work on mount.
Look at where the RAM and Phalanx are located on Burkes. And where the 5" guns got placed on the later US WW2 cruisers.
The only thing wrong with Phalanx is they never scaled up the cannon shells or significantly lessened the required time of flight. I won't confuse the roles of a CIWS system with a gun like the 76 mm/62 cal. We had technology developed 50+ years ago for 30 mm and 37 mm guns. Rheinmetall/Oerlikon 30 mm x 173 mm or 35 mm x 228 mm versions would have been even better OTS solutions. AHEAD rounds come in both flavors. Hell, the programming kit from Rheinmetall Oerlikon can be adapted to the Mark 44. Common rounds between guns doing different roles.
So compare Burke III with other ships in current production. Compare the future vaporware ship with other future alternatives like DDG(X).
Theres too many good CIWS available to think about just upgrading the staus quo. It has to be competitive.
I dont think 2 CIWS is the viable minimum anymore. Thats why Im saying dual feed because every gun has to double as CIWS.
Well I expect RAM and/or laser will take the most important centreline spots, but I also hope a 30mm Millenium Gun equivalent could take some on centreline and amidships since they arent deck penetrating mounts. Still CIWS oriented but in a fully enclosed mount.
How long does it take to warm up APKWS rounds? If you seriously do not have redundant solutions then you are simply accepting failure.
With hypersonic weapons coming in you are going to need more than two. I figured six gun-based CIWS were minimum. You do not have time to swing guns 90-120° to fight two missiles arriving seconds apart. SeaRAM cannot do it much better even when some have 21 missiles to unload. That is why redundancy is crucial when designing for the future.
Or we've accepted that CPS is going to get shoved in there whether it should be or not.
But Mk38"Mod5" isn't a CIWS except versus Shaheds. It's counter-USV with very limited c-UAS abilities. Yes, we've fitted the Mod5 with small AESA radars that are the same as on the CIWS-II for tracking, but the gun just doesn't have the rate of fire for fast missiles. Neither does a Millennium gun.
Dual feeds for a Mk38 or other chain gun, sure. But the dedicated units like the Korean CIWS-II or Goalkeeper stay single feed because they're AA/Anti-missile only.
Thing is, RAM can "bend" shots around the superstructure. It's a missile. So the launcher can be placed in "sub-optimal" spots, if you're defining by arcs of fire.
Or at least appeals to the man off the street.
The Brits had a 30mm rotary gun for CIWS, and still chose to swap to phalanx.
No. The gunhouse as I called it is a non-rotating piece that hid the front of the turret while the gun was stowed. The turrets proper are completely gone and were each replaced with a pair of Virginia-class Payload tubes. Magazine gutted and ripped out to make room for an 8ft diameter, 4"+ thick steel pipe hanging from the weather deck.
Goalkeeper was a deck-piercing system that weighs twice what Phalanx does.
Not sure it would help alone, but If IR countermeasures are implemented, turning the ship would present much smaller (easier to hide) signature to the seeker.
In general, turning the ship's bow toward incoming missiles provide such advantages as:
That was my point. But a 30mm to 40mm CIWS should deal with your drone swarm effectively, if its a dual purpose gun. So don't remove 4 to 6 potential CIWS positions to fit your favourite gun, just upgrade it to something dual purpose.
CPS application isnt so much the hosting platform, although that was certainly discussed many pages ago.
Those need to be in the mix too maybe as the CUAS RAM equivalent. Kind of a guided option beyond CIWS range.
I lost the context here, but no its not perfect. At least air burst AHEAD ammo has proven to be quite effective at that rate of fire. Several similar CIWS options might meet USN requirements. I think the through deck guns are for reliability and protected reloads. Things like Millenium Gun are more for filling gaps where the other gun wont fit.
So this is the tradeoff that has to be weighed.
Lasers maybe not, since the gun below it would be firing an arc through the laser beam.
And now they have gone to 40mm CIWS on the Type-31.
(as fortold in all the arena battleship games)
No, the general idea behind was that ASM is more likely to be inaccurate in azimuth than range. Old radar-homing ASM's of Cold War era have rather simple seekers, that switched off at last few kilometers in front of target - otherwise the return signal would become too strong (and could burn out the receiver), and differences in reflection between ship parts would become noticeable (i.e. the seeker would start to see multiple sources of echo instead of one big signature, and could gef easily confused). So the last few kilometers the typical Cold War era missile was flying blind, following the last position check, and of course deviated a bit from straight bearing.
Phalanx could disintegrate even the largest Cold War AShMs. Modern ones use different high density fragmenting materials which can often survive anything but a direct kinetic redirect. Cannons mounted on aircraft could turn ships into swiss cheese. It didn't take AShM makers long to figure out warheads that get broken up can still do better than monolithic payloads. They do not even need to blow up, just penetrate a few layers with fragments that can ignite steel. Aluminum burns much easier.
Subsonic - yes. P-700 Granit or X-22 Burya with their Mach 2.5/3 approach speed were crossing the range foo fast for Phalanx to reliably work on them. That's why USN started to replace it with RAM.
Exactly, research at the end of the 90's determined that CIWS can't deal with supersonic maneuvering missiles.
Yep. The efficient range of Phalanx is about 1.5 km. The Mach 2.5- Mach 3 missile would travel this distance at basically 2 seconds. This basically gave Phalanx time for one short burst at most. And considering P-700 reinforced bulkheads, the chance of actually exploding the warhead with a few random hits is... very small.
