Modern Warship Defence (CIWS) Discussion

[Mk38]

And yet everybody has them and has no plan to ditch them.

That’s not really a valid argument…it’s a fallacy called appeal to authority.

Just because it takes time for legacy/traditional leaders to adapt to the times or what the future holds doesn’t make it right.

 

[spikedpsycho]

I'd always assume development of hypersonic bullets. Perhaps with derodynamic testing, we do possess hypersonic wind tunnels, rounds in 25-35 mm range, micropores and funnels to excite cavitated air to act as a rocket plume, depleted uranium dense flachettes. This may sound silly and they are, but Army would interest joint development of project to arm their cannons.

 

[Sferrin]

I can't think of a non-American ship in build which is intending to use Phalanx. Most navies seem to be going for a mix of Italian guns with guided rounds, RAM and 20-30mm RWSs.

Last I checked, those were CIWS systems too.

 

[Sferrin]

That’s not really a valid argument…it’s a fallacy called appeal to authority.

Just because it takes time for legacy/traditional leaders to adapt to the times or what the future holds doesn’t make it right.

It's at least as valid as, "I don't like them, listen to me".

 

[Sferrin]

I think shell designs like this pop up nonstop since at least 1970s. About as perpetual as fusion power.

Yep.

 

[Mk38]

It's at least as valid as, "I don't like them, listen to me".

Ok? And?

 

[Mk38]

Last I checked, those were CIWS systems too.

Did they say they weren’t CIWS systems?

 

[spikedpsycho]

I would imagine a mini-THAAD.
THAAD is IR seeking as nothing hypersonic runs cold.
Incorporate missile strakes and its acceleration 0-5600 mph in 6 seconds. A boost yield higher faster consumption.

The missiles shroud have be hardened to withstand heat troposphere air friction but modern laced ceramics like silicon Carbide can do that

 

[cccgong]

I would imagine a mini-THAAD.
THAAD is IR seeking as nothing hypersonic runs cold.
Incorporate missile strakes and its acceleration 0-5600 mph in 6 seconds. A boost yield higher faster consumption.

The missiles shroud have be hardened to withstand heat troposphere air friction but modern laced ceramics like silicon Carbide can do that
View attachment 820844

Congratulations you’ve arrived at missiles, which is the entire solution to this CIWS insanity that people are promoting. You either do traditionally launched missiles or gun launched missiles by 5 inch mounts. You trade rate of fire for potential economics. The economics only exist if you already plan on having a 5 inch amount, and you can’t further reduce solid rocket or ram jet motor pricing.

 

[Sferrin]

Did they say they weren’t CIWS systems?

Sounds like you should take another read through the thread.

 

[Sferrin]

Congratulations you’ve arrived at missiles, which is the entire solution to this CIWS insanity that people are promoting. You either do traditionally launched missiles or gun launched missiles by 5 inch mounts. You trade rate of fire for potential economics. The economics only exist if you already plan on having a 5 inch amount, and you can’t further reduce solid rocket or ram jet motor pricing.

You should alert,well, every navy on the planet. They all still use CIWS, and are including them in new builds.

 

[cccgong]

You should alert,well, every navy on the planet. They all still use CIWS, and are included them in new builds.

Great appeal to authority there. It’s not like militaries always hold onto outdated concepts. It’s also not like people are even moving away from gun CIWS to missiles like RAM.

 

[Sferrin]

Great appeal to authority there. It’s not like militaries always hold onto outdated concepts. It’s also not like people are even moving away from gun CIWS to missiles like RAM.

LMAO! "How dare you cite facts here. That's appeal to authority, don't you know!"

Do you see anything about guns here? Me either. How about debating the actual topic instead of the one you made up in your head.

"CIWS is a costly component that draws from the primary mission payload but offers limited value beyond serving as a goalkeeper against part of the threat spectrum.

4 modern CIWS on their own can cost you as much as a cheap surface combatant. And you need them to be modern, as threat profiles evolve.
And a non-modern one...what's the point? It will still be expensive, but it won't do its work.

Among modern combatants, only Italians buy 3 CIWS per normal ship, and that, at least to a degree, is industrial policy.
One-of-a-kind exception is Nakhimov, but that's a capital ship effectively."

 

[DJK]

CIWS is not a brand name for American specific air defence guns. So yeah Phalanx and Goalkeeper are just single role examples of it. They are last-ditch weapons that kick in after the threat has penetrated other defensive layers. That is becoming increasingly likely, hence the diacussion of more modern CIWS. The attraction of 35mm systems is that they tend to be more multipurpose but retain the primary air defence focus.

Supersonic missiles are carrying more energy so the defending ship catches a whole lot more

Which is why we are talking about 30mm+ CIWS with 3km to 5km engagement range. One could argue that guided rounds add enough effective range to turn the system into a SHORAD or something.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/naval-gun-projects.1672/#post-13946

• GD proposal to use GE Cased Telescoped ORDALT 35mm weapon system.
• 8 barrels.
• 8000rpm.
• Balanced linkless feed holding 1200 APDS rounds.
• Nearly 6x on target energy per shot compared with 20mm Phalanx.
• Dispersion of less than 1mrad.
• MV greater than 1130m/s.

Interesting. 9s of firing time. They managed to get alot of accuracy out of a gatling gun.

I can't think of a non-American ship in build which is intending to use Phalanx. Most navies seem to be going for a mix of Italian guns with guided rounds, RAM and 20-30mm RWSs.

There are also 35mm and 40mm. Some of them might have air defence as a secondary capability so not really CIWS. Maybe 76mm with DART could be another acronym but similar role. Virtually all the 35mm remote mounts are optimised for anti-missile defence, so those are CIWS but usually without the on-mount tracking radar and "automatic mode".

Nobody could say whether Mogami actually has space for a couple of 35mm, still wondering about that.

 

[spikedpsycho]

Congratulations you’ve arrived at missiles, which is the entire solution to this CIWS insanity that people are promoting. You either do traditionally launched missiles or gun launched missiles by 5 inch mounts. You trade rate of fire for potential economics. The economics only exist if you already plan on having a 5 inch amount, and you can’t further reduce solid rocket or ram jet motor pricing.

Guns will still play their role.
China type 730, Korea LG1, Russia Pantsir.
All recent CIWS developments

 

[cccgong]

Guns will still play their role.
China type 730, Korea LG1, Russia Pantsir.
All recent CIWS developments




View attachment 820851

Pantsir is originally a land based system put on ships out of desperation during the Ukraine war, development started in 1995.

Type 730 started production in 2003 when China has a non-existant navy. Since then China deployed SeaRam style CIWS mostly surplanting the type 730, and this is with western nations only using subsonic ASM.

The Korean system was just started as an industrial policy decision and they wanted a replacement for the Phanlax for their new ships as they didn't like the price increases on it.


So, no there aren't really any new independently justified gun CIWS developments.

 

[Scott Kenny]

CIWS is a costly component that draws from the primary mission payload but offers limited value beyond serving as a goalkeeper against part of the threat spectrum.

Not sure I'd call "less than a single fat-SM3" costly.

4 modern CIWS on their own can cost you as much as a cheap surface combatant.

How are you getting most of a billion dollars out of 4x CIWS? Which units specifically please.

• Phalanx runs 8-18mil, Goalkeeper on the upper end of that range. CIWS-II runs on the low end of that.
• Mk49 RAM launcher runs somewhere around 16mil for the launcher and spares, plus another 20mil to load it. RIM-116s are stupid expensive.
• The OTO 76mm Super Rapid runs about 2mil each mount.

My proposed BBG load of 6x 76mm Super Rapids, 4x RAM, 4x CIWS-II, and 4x Mk38"Mod5" (a Mod4 with added radar) is looking at ~200mil ammunition included.

And you need them to be modern, as threat profiles evolve.
And a non-modern one...what's the point? It will still be expensive, but it won't do its work.

One of the evolving threat profiles is attacks in enough mass that you have multiple incoming at more or less the same range. The easiest way to deal with that is simply more CIWS units and hope that there's enough distance between incoming to easily assign one as the priority target.

The fancier way is for your CIWS units to talk to each other and call their shots, but that is harder to keep each CIWS also capable of independent operations that way.

Among modern combatants, only Italians buy 3 CIWS per normal ship, and that, at least to a degree, is industrial policy.

So? The threat has changed. Over the course of WW2 we saw AA defenses go from "a few" to "cover every horizontal space available, topweight be damned" as the air threat increased.

What makes you think that packing a bunch of CIWS systems while we try to come up with cheap anti-drone options isn't going to happen?

 

[spikedpsycho]

US Armys XM913 50mm. It's rounds necked from 35mm offer change better performance. With round speed kilometer per second and possible high velocity experiments exceeding 1.5 km/s at rate 200 rounds per minute. Has been proposed defense against Shahad drones and sub sonic to supersonic weapons

 

[Mk38]

Sounds like you should take another read through the thread.

“I can't think of a non-American ship in build which is intending to use Phalanx. Most navies seem to be going for a mix of Italian guns with guided rounds, RAM and 20-30mm RWSs.”
Literally what was said.

They only said non-Americans weren’t intending to use phalanx.

 

[Sferrin]

US Armys XM913 50mm. It's rounds necked from 35mm offer change better performance. With round speed kilometer per second and possible high velocity experiments exceeding 1.5 km/s at rate 200 rounds per minute. Has been proposed defense against Shahad drones and sub sonic to supersonic weapons

View attachment 820857

Yikes. Reminds me of these POSs:

 

[Sferrin]

“I can't think of a non-American ship in build which is intending to use Phalanx. Most navies seem to be going for a mix of Italian guns with guided rounds, RAM and 20-30mm RWSs.”
Literally what was said.

They only said non-Americans weren’t intending to use phalanx.

And?

 

[Mk38]

Pantsir is originally a land based system put on ships out of desperation during the Ukraine war, development started in 1995.

Type 730 started production in 2003 when China has a non-existant navy. Since then China deployed SeaRam style CIWS mostly surplanting the type 730, and this is with western nations only using subsonic ASM.

The Korean system was just started as an industrial policy decision and they wanted a replacement for the Phanlax for their new ships as they didn't like the price increases on it.


So, no there aren't really any new independently justified gun CIWS developments.

Pretty sure the Russian navy was putting the turret of pantsir on ships long before the Ukraine war started (or maybe it’s just another system that is very similar looking.)

Edit
I was thinking of kashtan, which seems to be a pantsir predecessor

 

[Mk38]

And?

You have to be trolling. I refuse to believe you’re this dense.

 

[DJK]

Did they say they weren’t CIWS syssystems

They implied anything bigger than 20mm is a RWS, not true but theres a grey area with varying effective range and degrees of on-mount processing/sensing.

Type 730 started production in 2003 when China has a non-existant navy. Since then China deployed SeaRam style CIWS mostly surplanting the type 730, and this is with western nations only using subsonic ASM.

But some of those ASM are low observable NSMs/JSMs, hence the need for missile based CIWS. Western militaries only recently started taking low cost drones seriously, and future could see those get used as offensive weapons along with decoys to deplete missile based defences.

The Korean system was just started as an industrial policy decision and they wanted a replacement for the Phanlax for their new ships as they didn't like the price increases on it.

You say the Phalanx perceived as expensive so needed replacement. That says they wanted to keep thw CIWS capability in a more sensible form.

 

[Ainen]

Not sure I'd call "less than a single fat-SM3" costly.

Well, SM3 is ridiculously expensive, but it's a space interceptor. It probably should cost something.

How are you getting most of a billion dollars out of 4x CIWS? Which units specifically please.

• Phalanx runs 8-18mil, Goalkeeper on the upper end of that range. CIWS-II runs on the low end of that.
• Mk49 RAM launcher runs somewhere around 16mil for the launcher and spares, plus another 20mil to load it. RIM-116s are stupid expensive.
• The OTO 76mm Super Rapid runs about 2mil each mount.

This is a troublesome list.
Phalanx is not a modern system; it's capability can be directly questioned across modern threat spectrum (from subsonic targets onwards - as frontal RCS of a modern sea skimmer is lower by order - or orders of magnitude compared to best 1980s examples). Newly developed systems with up to date sensor kit(like Turkish or Korean) will cost you more...
RAM and SEA RAM with mk2b were 40-50 apiece full per 2024 prices(and 70-80 if we add in full missile price rather than naked unit ex works).
Super Rapide was 10-12 many years ago, for a "naked"(non strales) mount. Strales per 2023 data is 22.2, Sovraponte with strales will be a bit more more. But by itself it is not a weapon, you need a fire control set for it(around 10? NA-30S for example), and, as usual, ammo (darts are cheap, but still it's 20-25k apiece).
I.e. we're again at 35-40ish range.

I.e. 2 pieces buy you an F-35, or an entire constellation class normal missile load.

 

[DJK]

This is a troublesome list.

Theres also no mention of 35mm systems in that list, which might be cheaper since the get target data from ship systems. So of course i asked Google...

"what is cost of different 35mm ciws systems?"

The unit acquisition cost of 35mm Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) varies by manufacturer, but systems like the Oerlikon Millennium and Aselsan Gökdeniz generally cost between $10 million and $17.5 million USD per unit. [1, 2, 3, 4]
A more specific cost breakdown reveals differences in capabilities, integration, and platform costs:

• • Oerlikon Millennium Gun (Switzerland): Manufactured by Rheinmetall, this single-barrel, 35mm naval revolver gun is typically priced around $10 million USD per unit. It is distinct for using Ahead airburst ammunition. A European navy previously ordered two Millennium guns with integration and technical support for roughly €12 million EUR ($13 million USD). [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • Aselsan Gökdeniz (Turkey): This twin-barreled 35mm CIWS utilizes ATOM programmable airburst ammunition to efficiently engage swarming threats and anti-ship missiles. While an exact per-unit price is restricted by classified procurement contracts, it sits within the similar $10–$18 million USD bracket in the broader naval market alongside other heavy CIWS platforms. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

System Cost vs. Firing Cost
While the initial acquisition of a 35mm system is a major capital investment, the operational costs of the ammunition are a major factor in the long term. 35mm systems are increasingly valued over traditional 20mm platforms (like the U.S. Navy's Phalanx) because they use pre-programmed airburst rounds. This allows them to destroy multiple, agile targets (like fast-attack craft or drones) at greater ranges with fewer shots, saving significant ammunition costs per engagement. [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

[DJK]

I.e. 2 pieces buy you an F-35, or an entire constellation class normal missile load.

I thought you had a way to kickstart the Constellation class for a moment...

But then if a J35 gets a missile through, you might have to look at the value proposition again.

 

[cccgong]

Not sure I'd call "less than a single fat-SM3" costly.



How are you getting most of a billion dollars out of 4x CIWS? Which units specifically please.

• Phalanx runs 8-18mil, Goalkeeper on the upper end of that range. CIWS-II runs on the low end of that.
• Mk49 RAM launcher runs somewhere around 16mil for the launcher and spares, plus another 20mil to load it. RIM-116s are stupid expensive.
• The OTO 76mm Super Rapid runs about 2mil each mount.

My proposed BBG load of 6x 76mm Super Rapids, 4x RAM, 4x CIWS-II, and 4x Mk38"Mod5" (a Mod4 with added radar) is looking at ~200mil ammunition included.



One of the evolving threat profiles is attacks in enough mass that you have multiple incoming at more or less the same range. The easiest way to deal with that is simply more CIWS units and hope that there's enough distance between incoming to easily assign one as the priority target.

The fancier way is for your CIWS units to talk to each other and call their shots, but that is harder to keep each CIWS also capable of independent operations that way.




So? The threat has changed. Over the course of WW2 we saw AA defenses go from "a few" to "cover every horizontal space available, topweight be damned" as the air threat increased.

What makes you think that packing a bunch of CIWS systems while we try to come up with cheap anti-drone options isn't going to happen?

A phanlax was 32M each sold to Taiwan. So it's much more than a single fat SM3. Also no CIWS can defend aganist BM/hypersonics. CIWS-II hasn't been deployed yet so let's see what the price ends up being.

Massed FPV/Shahed/sea baby type targets just aren't a threat in the areas you'd deploy ships in the Pacific, and how high end surface combatants are deployed. You don't need 12 CIWS + main gun. 1 maybe 2 CIWS + main gun with guided or airbursting ammo is enough.

I thought you had a way to kickstart the Constellation class for a moment...

But then if a J35 gets a missile through, you might have to look at the value proposition again.

Again even modern CIWS will have a very hard time engaging modern super/sub sonic missiles with terminal manuevring and forget about hypersonic/BM which the Chinese are quickly transitioning to.

They implied anything bigger than 20mm is a RWS, not true but theres a grey area with varying effective range and degrees of on-mount processing/sensing.

But some of those ASM are low observable NSMs/JSMs, hence the need for missile based CIWS. Western militaries only recently started taking low cost drones seriously, and future could see those get used as offensive weapons along with decoys to deplete missile based defences.

You say the Phalanx perceived as expensive so needed replacement. That says they wanted to keep thw CIWS capability in a more sensible form.

Or as we've constantly seen it's just insitutional inertia, just like bayonets still being a part of standard kit...

 

[Sferrin]

You have to be trolling. I refuse to believe you’re this dense.

Since you still haven't figured it out, the discussion is about CIWS systems, not Phalanx specifically. I even quoted the post for you and you still didn't get it. Buh-bye.

 

[Sferrin]

Well, SM3 is ridiculously expensive, but it's a space interceptor. It probably should cost something.

This is a troublesome list.
Phalanx is not a modern system; it's capability can be directly questioned across modern threat spectrum (from subsonic targets onwards - as frontal RCS of a modern sea skimmer is lower by order - or orders of magnitude compared to best 1980s examples). Newly developed systems with up to date sensor kit(like Turkish or Korean) will cost you more...
RAM and SEA RAM with mk2b were 40-50 apiece full per 2024 prices(and 70-80 if we add in full missile price rather than naked unit ex works).
Super Rapide was 10-12 many years ago, for a "naked"(non strales) mount. Strales per 2023 data is 22.2, Sovraponte with strales will be a bit more more. But by itself it is not a weapon, you need a fire control set for it(around 10? NA-30S for example), and, as usual, ammo (darts are cheap, but still it's 20-25k apiece).
I.e. we're again at 35-40ish range.

I.e. 2 pieces buy you an F-35, or an entire constellation class normal missile load.

"40 million dollars is too expensive for a $300 million ship. We'd rather lose the $300 million ship." Well, you do you Boo Boo.

 

[Ainen]

"40 million dollars is too expensive for a $300 million ship. We'd rather lose the $300 million ship." Well, you do you Boo Boo.

If you place 4, it's already 160. I.e. you get 2 for the price of 3(50% lesser fleet), with not a penny of additional primary mission capability.
And then promptly lose it to a threat CIWS can't counter.

 

[Sferrin]

If you place 4, it's already 160. I.e. you get 2 for the price of 3(50% lesser fleet), with not a penny of additional primary mission capability.
And then promptly lose it to a threat CIWS can't counter.

Which $300 million ship has four CIWS on it?

 

[Ainen]

Which $300 million ship has four CIWS on it?

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.

 

[Sferrin]

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.

What seems to be the trend is combining guns and short-range missiles and selecting the best weapon for the task. RAM/ESSM and Phalanx/Goalkeeper on the same ship, one of each, rather than multiple of one type. Gotta have something though. Personally, I like this but it is any more effective against missiles? (76mm SuperRapido with DART guided munition.)

 

[MadRat]

$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.

 

[Sferrin]

$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.

The unit itself tracks the bullet stream going out and makes corrections.

 

[DJK]

Massed FPV/Shahed/sea baby type targets just aren't a threat in the areas you'd deploy ships in the Pacific, and how high end surface combatants are deployed. You don't need 12 CIWS + main gun. 1 maybe 2 CIWS + main gun with guided or airbursting ammo is enough.

They may not be now, but the PLAN hasn't exactly told us whether they will be limiting their choices of weapons to fast missiles only. I guess the 12 CIWS was something gleaned from the BBGX thread so you should keep your comparisons within the same context.

Again even modern CIWS will have a very hard time engaging modern super/sub sonic missiles with terminal manuevring and forget about hypersonic/BM which the Chinese are quickly transitioning to.

A very hard time but they are deaigned for it. Unfortunately we have instances where Saudis fire up to 5 PAC3 at a ballistic so you do need last ditch defences. That is probably 57mm for ballistics and 35mm for cruise missiles. If only 57mm had a DART round for the job.

If you place 4, it's already 160. I.e. you get 2 for the price of 3(50% lesser fleet), with not a penny of additional primary mission capability.
And then promptly lose it to a threat CIWS can't counter.

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?

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

Yes. Your cheap and happy mini frigate would be lucky to get 2 at most.

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.

And the mount is compact and multipurpose enough to replace a secondary gun like they did with Bofors on the Type-31.

 

[Mk38]

Since you still haven't figured it out, the discussion is about CIWS systems, not Phalanx specifically. I even quoted the post for you and you still didn't get it. Buh-bye.

Yeah no shit, that’s why it made no sense when you pointed out that all those none phalanx systems were CIWS.

You’re just out here stating the obvious for no reason

 

[Mk38]

They implied anything bigger than 20mm is a RWS, not true but theres a grey area with varying effective range and degrees of on-mount processing/sensing.

But some of those ASM are low observable NSMs/JSMs, hence the need for missile based CIWS. Western militaries only recently started taking low cost drones seriously, and future could see those get used as offensive weapons along with decoys to deplete missile based defences.

You say the Phalanx perceived as expensive so needed replacement. That says they wanted to keep thw CIWS capability in a more sensible form.

An RWS is any gun mounted system that can be controlled remotely rather from on deck at the mount itself…so CIWS systems are RWSes…

 

[Mk38]

A phanlax was 32M each sold to Taiwan. So it's much more than a single fat SM3. Also no CIWS can defend aganist BM/hypersonics. CIWS-II hasn't been deployed yet so let's see what the price ends up being.

Massed FPV/Shahed/sea baby type targets just aren't a threat in the areas you'd deploy ships in the Pacific, and how high end surface combatants are deployed. You don't need 12 CIWS + main gun. 1 maybe 2 CIWS + main gun with guided or airbursting ammo is enough.


Again even modern CIWS will have a very hard time engaging modern super/sub sonic missiles with terminal manuevring and forget about hypersonic/BM which the Chinese are quickly transitioning to.


Or as we've constantly seen it's just insitutional inertia, just like bayonets still being a part of standard kit...

How are drones air or surface not a threat in the pacific exactly?

Shaheds can be fired from the back of a truck. This means they can be easily packed onto fishing trawlers and launched anywhere said trawler can go. guess it’s a good thing China doesn’t have direct access to many fishing trawlers…oh…wait…

Similar for seababy style drones. Just about any vessel with a ramp of some sort and rollers can easily deploy them. Rollers aren’t even necessary if the drones have little plastic wheels designed into the bottom of the hull. Just get a few dudes to push them out the back.