• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Trailer mounted Phalanx

Status
Not open for further replies.

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
Not secret or cancelled but rare enough that I thought I'd pass the picture along.
 

Attachments

  • cram203ds2.jpg
    cram203ds2.jpg
    15.5 KB · Views: 364

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,311
Reaction score
1,264
It that a C-RAM? Counter Rocket, Artillary and Mortar?
 

hole in the ground

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
3
Is it that rare? There are several dedicated to protecting British bases in the middle east from rocket attack currently.

I may be wrong, but isnt phalanx supposed to be a 'bolt-on' system? Integrating a unit into a trailer must be a simpler task than doing it to a ship. I dont know how long they have been available for use but id have thought it a quite logical step on the part of the manufacturers to offer a wider user base. Reckon it'd work in a land convoy, protect from RPGs in open country?
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
585
Reaction score
24
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
Its reaction time isn't good enough against RPGs.

Phalanx CIWS was a relatively light and small weapon for ships and didn't need as much space like its competitor Goalkeeper, for example. Several Phalanx CIWS were removed from decommissioned ships, maybe these C-RAM sets are based on those old Phalanx systems. I suspect the company built no new ones.
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,022
Reaction score
106
sferrin said:
Not secret or cancelled but rare enough that I thought I'd pass the picture along.

Interesting. Considering this is usually considered a system which can be easily "bolted onto" a ship's deck and has minimal needs for support from ship systems, just how much support equipment it does require when its not bolted on a ship. The size of the generator system alone is quite large, let alone the rest of the stuff on the trailer.
 

hole in the ground

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
3
It has a self contained control station as well. Im not sure if that is on the same trailer or a different one.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
rickshaw said:
sferrin said:
Not secret or cancelled but rare enough that I thought I'd pass the picture along.

Interesting. Considering this is usually considered a system which can be easily "bolted onto" a ship's deck and has minimal needs for support from ship systems, just how much support equipment it does require when its not bolted on a ship. The size of the generator system alone is quite large, let alone the rest of the stuff on the trailer.

Power has to come from somewhere. They don't have electric outlets on tumbleweeds out in the desert.
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,022
Reaction score
106
sferrin said:
rickshaw said:
sferrin said:
Not secret or cancelled but rare enough that I thought I'd pass the picture along.

Interesting. Considering this is usually considered a system which can be easily "bolted onto" a ship's deck and has minimal needs for support from ship systems, just how much support equipment it does require when its not bolted on a ship. The size of the generator system alone is quite large, let alone the rest of the stuff on the trailer.

Power has to come from somewhere. They don't have electric outlets on tumbleweeds out in the desert.

Really? ::)

I'd suggest thats quite a large generator, none the less. One wonders what the power needs of this system actually are.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
816
This has been used very successfully in combat. It is integrated with counter battery radars that themselves are integrated into counter-battery artillery. Basically the savages fire their mortar/rocket/slingshot it gets detected by the counter-battery radar that passes the information to the C-RAM, this orientates itself and then engages the incoming round. Simultaneously the origin of the round is passed to the artillery that then returns fire. Ideally, when everything is working as it should and the rules of engagement are clear the bad guys day double sucks: First his fired round gets destroyed without hitting a target and then he gets blown apart by a 155mm shell. I am told that the British found the system very useful in Iraq and in the end they were integrating UAV's into the net to help with the fire decision.

These are intended for fixed positions at large bases, hence the power requirements are not really an issue. the next evolution of this concept is the iron dome system being developed by/for Israel.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
rickshaw said:
I'd suggest thats quite a large generator, none the less.

Compared to what? How much of the gear on the trailer is devoted to things like fuel for the generator and cooling?
 

hole in the ground

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
3
How mobile is it really? I think a temporary area defence system is a better deffinition than a mobile one.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
An impressive bit of video of a C-RAM firing at night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqTyafBaDYM&feature=related

NOTE: Some Englandlander soldiers use some very Saxon language.
--------
And here's a daylight firing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmjZBaQLsCw&NR=1
NOTE: Some USian soldiers use some very Saxon language. Also note the portapots, conveniently located.
---------
And here's a video showing the complete system fairly clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsnhyTiTqk4&feature=PlayList&p=42374376FDCEE536&index=5
NOTE: Sadly, no colorful metaphors are in evidence.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
hole in the ground said:
How mobile is it really? I think a temporary area defence system is a better deffinition than a mobile one.

Who cares exactly?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sferrin said:
hole in the ground said:
How mobile is it really? I think a temporary area defence system is a better deffinition than a mobile one.

Who cares exactly?

Well, I do, for one. The sooner I can mount one of these to the roof of my VW Golf, the sooner those damned starlings will get what for....
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
816
hole in the ground said:
How mobile is it really? I think a temporary area defence system is a better deffinition than a mobile one.

What? What part of 'this is intended for use at fixed sites' is that you found so confusing?
 

hole in the ground

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
3
Wow... backlash

er ok.

That comment was based on a comparison to rapier. Which I think is more mobile than this system appears to be.
I guess I am the only one that sees the distinction though...
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
hole in the ground said:
Wow... backlash

er ok.

That comment was based on a comparison to rapier. Which I think is more mobile than this system appears to be.
I guess I am the only one that sees the distinction though...

You mean Rapier- a system that doesn't even have any wheels?
 

Attachments

  • ORD_SAM_Rapier_FSC_UK_Loading_lg.jpg
    ORD_SAM_Rapier_FSC_UK_Loading_lg.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 67

hole in the ground

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
3
Not when it is off its trailer it doesnt...

I bet the phalanx system is fired with supporting legs taking all the weight though. And i would suspect that it takes less time to move a rapier system and that when it is moving it is more mobile and off road capable...
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
hole in the ground said:
Not when it is off its trailer it doesnt...

I bet the phalanx system is fired with supporting legs taking all the weight though. And i would suspect that it takes less time to move a rapier system and that when it is moving it is more mobile and off road capable...

Rapier seems like it might not be cost effective when used against *mortars.*
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
hole in the ground said:
Not when it is off its trailer it doesnt...

I bet the phalanx system is fired with supporting legs taking all the weight though. And i would suspect that it takes less time to move a rapier system and that when it is moving it is more mobile and off road capable...

So a system that has to be loaded back on it's trailer is more mobile that one that simply has to raise a few hydraulic jacks?
 

hole in the ground

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
235
Reaction score
3


Mobile version of rapier ???

I would have thought it takes more than just lowering the jacks to ready the phalanx. But i dont know as I have not operated either system
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
Both require more than just lowering jacks. As do the Patriot, S-300/400, and many other "mobile" weapons. None of them are "shoot-on-the-move". (Some are, just none of these ;) )
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
816
Why is this discussion even taking place? Who cares if a Rapier is fractionally more mobile (which no one has yet done anyway), the purpose of this system is to protect fixed installations against mortars and rockets, rapier can not practically do that as is proven by the fact that British (you know the people who designed and now use Rapier ::)) have been one of the most notable and successful users of tha land based Phalanx system.
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,022
Reaction score
106
Rapier could, with a few tweaks, in all likelihood do it. Sea Wolf can "as is". It was successfully tested against 4.5in gun shells. Both would be an expensive way of doing it, though. Phalanx is cheaper but I doubt it could destroy a heavy artillery shell. 20mm is a little bit on the small size. 155mm might have shell walls which are too thick for it to penetrate.

Oh, and it appears that people forgot that Rapier comes in a self-propelled variant:



No jacks to lower or raise. Just shoot and scoot.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
816
Compare the cost of Rapier missiles to 20mm cannon shells, I would like evidence of 20mm being unable to take down a 155mm shell.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
sealordlawrence said:
Compare the cost of Rapier missiles to 20mm cannon shells, I would like evidence of 20mm being unable to take down a 155mm shell.

A 20mm impacting a 155 shell at those closing velocities is going to jack it up no question.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sferrin said:
sealordlawrence said:
Compare the cost of Rapier missiles to 20mm cannon shells, I would like evidence of 20mm being unable to take down a 155mm shell.

A 20mm impacting a 155 shell at those closing velocities is going to jack it up no question.

Indeed. Closing speeds of Mach 5 or more should not be seen as trivial. A glancing blow would stand a chance of minimal damage, but a hit to the fuse would ruin the incoming shells day.

The same gun mounts to the M-113, though with a much lower power/precision radar. It'd be interesting to see what could be done with an intermediate platform, something bigger than the M-113, smaller than the flatbed trailer... perhaps the MLRS tractor. Something that could actually shoot on the move, say. Alternatively... mount the best system possible on a smaller vehicle, but use a smaller Gatling... a .50 caliber, perhaps.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
I wouldn't mind seeing a GAU-8 on an Abrams chassis.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sferrin said:
I wouldn't mind seeing a GAU-8 on an Abrams chassis.

That's probably more chassis than that gun needs; a smaller chassis would likely do just fine. However, a GAU-8A in a fully-armored setup would probably make for a hell of a streetfighter, especially if it was equipped with a range of other urban/anti-armor weapons such as grenade launchers and miniguns.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
I wouldn't mind seeing a GAU-8 on an Abrams chassis.

That's probably more chassis than that gun needs; a smaller chassis would likely do just fine.


Well you could always up it to a twin like Tunguska. ;)



Orionblamblam said:
However, a GAU-8A in a fully-armored setup would probably make for a hell of a streetfighter, especially if it was equipped with a range of other urban/anti-armor weapons such as grenade launchers and miniguns.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
sferrin said:
Well you could always up it to a twin like Tunguska. ;)

Then you're back to the semi-trailer again... to hold all the ammo.

BRRRRRRRP.

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRP.

BRRRP.

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPP.

click
click
click

-EXPLETIVE DELETED_
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
164
rickshaw said:
Rapier could, with a few tweaks, in all likelihood do it.

C-RAM [Counter Rocket Artillery and Mortars] is not just an issue of hitting a hard target like an artillery shell. The system needs to detect the target, plot its ballistic trajectory and then intercept it within the very short engagement time with no warning from very long readiness periods. Rapier is not going to be able to respond within this cycle. If it could then BAES would be shilling them like hot dogs.

A system like Phalanx and other naval CIWS were designed in the first place for the kind of long readiness with very quick reaction to difficult and fleeting targets. While ideal interception of an anti-ship missile is very different to C-RAM at least these systems have a chance to actually hit it.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
164
Orionblamblam said:
That's probably more chassis than that gun needs; a smaller chassis would likely do just fine. However, a GAU-8A in a fully-armored setup would probably make for a hell of a streetfighter, especially if it was equipped with a range of other urban/anti-armor weapons such as grenade launchers and miniguns.

I would use an M1 chassis for a GAU-8 turret simply because of the huge weight needed for the gun, recoil assembly, ammunition, FCS and armour to protect it all. Its two tonnes for the gun and 1,150 rounds without any structure to elevate, train and absorb its recoil (45kN).

Maybe there was a FAADS proposal with an Abrams GAU-8 proposal.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=696.0
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
As for C-RAM's mobility. . .
 

Attachments

  • C-RAM.jpg
    C-RAM.jpg
    162.8 KB · Views: 75

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Of course, the Chinese just *gotta* copy...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A2efa1148-4128-4df7-9fea-875ab509c04e

On show in model form was the LD2000 ground-based close-in weapon system, similar in principle to the Raytheon Centurion: a naval-type CIWS gun mounted on a heavy truck for the defense of critical targets against rockets, artillery, cruise missiles and other threats.

However, LD2000 has a larger gun - a 30 mm, seven-barrel weapon firing 4200 rounds per minute, including an armor piercing discarding sabot round. It is also teamed with an Intelligence and Command Vehicle (ICV) with a tracking radar. A Norinco brochure shows three LD2000 fire units and one ICV providing a shield around a mobile intermediate-range ballistic missile.




And:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-Div-ADS.html


 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,167
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
And copying the copiers:

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.152/pub_detail.asp
The 2007 IDEX show saw the revelation of two more SPAAG concepts from the Zhengzhou Electromechanical Engineering Research Institute (ZEERI). Both concepts use a 30mm gattling gun based on the design the Russian Instrument Design Bureau. The ZEERI Hailstorm-A2 concept places the gattling gun in a turret, with a radar/optical targeting system, atop a WZ-551 APC. The Hailstorm-A1 concept places the turret/targeting system on a truck that must remain stationary to fire, in a manner the same as Norinco�s LD-2000. Zhengzhou claims a 4,000 rpm rate of fire, plus a 4km engagement range for aircraft and 1.7km for cruise missiles.

 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,413
Reaction score
1,451
Orionblamblam said:
Of course, the Chinese just *gotta* copy...

But at least they did it right and used a Goalkeeper/GAU-8 (because you know damn well they didn't come up with it themselves. Besides 7 barrels and 4200 rounds per minute is a bit too coincidental.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top