Joined: 10:52 AM - Apr 05, 2018

12:58 PM - Oct 11, 2018 #271

gmg4rwf wrote:
A G Williams wrote:
Lack of deck penetration is a positive advantage when it comes to installing Phalanx on board existing ships - the process is much easier, just bolt 'em on and plug 'em in.

The Phalanx has 1,550 rounds on the mounting, which last for 20 seconds continuous firing, but in practice short bursts of 60-100 rounds are fired. Reloading takes 5 minutes.

The only GAU-8/A CIWS mounting in service (Goalkeeper) is already a deck-penetrator. 
Yes, I'm aware of that, but it's a major disadvantage when facing a salvo of missiles, and it takes far more than 5 minutes to haul out the ammo drums to the mount to start reloading, not to mention the loading crew being fully exposed to whatever bad weather my be occurring (battles don't just take place during calm clear weather with moderate tempters) and whatever sharp spinning objects the enemy sent their way. The advantage in not having to cut a small hole is not a major advantage, yea you can stick it wherever you want, but its a very minor one compared to the loss of battle readiness. As to fire time, it fires 4,500 r/m that's less than half a minus worth of fire, even fired conservatively, the blink of an eye in a real fight. no, its just an excuse for lazy engineering, anyway, I didn't say they should scrap all of the current versions, I said they should have a below-deck loading model with extendable magazines available for where it can be mounted.
CIWS is for leakers if you have a large number of incoming missiles you will use soft kill to take down the whole lot.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 12:26 AM - Feb 13, 2014

7:39 PM - Oct 11, 2018 #272

kenya5oh wrote:
gmg4rwf wrote:
A G Williams wrote:
Lack of deck penetration is a positive advantage when it comes to installing Phalanx on board existing ships - the process is much easier, just bolt 'em on and plug 'em in.

The Phalanx has 1,550 rounds on the mounting, which last for 20 seconds continuous firing, but in practice short bursts of 60-100 rounds are fired. Reloading takes 5 minutes.

The only GAU-8/A CIWS mounting in service (Goalkeeper) is already a deck-penetrator. 
Yes, I'm aware of that, but it's a major disadvantage when facing a salvo of missiles, and it takes far more than 5 minutes to haul out the ammo drums to the mount to start reloading, not to mention the loading crew being fully exposed to whatever bad weather my be occurring (battles don't just take place during calm clear weather with moderate tempters) and whatever sharp spinning objects the enemy sent their way. The advantage in not having to cut a small hole is not a major advantage, yea you can stick it wherever you want, but its a very minor one compared to the loss of battle readiness. As to fire time, it fires 4,500 r/m that's less than half a minus worth of fire, even fired conservatively, the blink of an eye in a real fight. no, its just an excuse for lazy engineering, anyway, I didn't say they should scrap all of the current versions, I said they should have a below-deck loading model with extendable magazines available for where it can be mounted.
CIWS is for leakers if you have a large number of incoming missiles you will use soft kill to take down the whole lot.
Exactly.  If you're depending on CIWS to take out a big salvo of missiles, you either a) sent a ship out to play "beat the bushes" without adequate SAM coverage, b) have already lost your area defense escorts and/or friendly air cover & are in pretty bad shape anyway, or c) you really, really screwed up when you approved the design of the ship.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 10:05 AM - Jun 09, 2015

1:35 AM - Oct 13, 2018 #273

Or the enemy didn't play along with your plans, and figured out that VLS numbers is a significant weakness that can be targeted with long-range shore-based missiles, after which a salvo of hypersonics overwhelm the CIWS.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 12:26 AM - Feb 13, 2014

5:09 PM - Oct 16, 2018 #274

I guess it depends on what kind of "overwhelming" you need.  For a ship that only has 8 Mk 41 cells (or 16 Mk 48/56 cells), if you assume your ESSMs are only going to be 25% effective at shooting down missiles, you still need at least an entire battery of shore-launched AShMs (maybe more if they're older types -- the old Silkworm-based designs only had 4 launchers per battery, each with 1 ready missile) to empty that single target's ESSM load...but again, what are the chances that a single ship that only has 32 ESSM as its only VLS weapons is going to sail alone that close to the coast?

But let's say a captain is foolish enough to take his Burke that close by itself...& even though it's the later 96-cell ones, he has 24 filled with VLA & 24 with TacToms, so he only has 48 cells left.  At worst (48 SM-2 Block IV/SM-6 missiles), 2 batteries will run him dry...but a more likely load (32 SM-2/-6 & 64 ESSMs), assuming he doesn't hold any Standards back for shooting down aircraft you'd need 3 full batteries to wear him down.  Run in with a Tico (26 VLA, 32 TacTom, & 64 cells for Standard/ESSM) means you'll need up to 4 batteries or more to wear them down.  You're talking about an entire battalion of shore-based launchers just to "wear down" a single target so that your hypersonic missiles can swoop in.

Most CVBGs run with 4-6 Ticos & Burkes as escorts, and have their own BPDMS/IPDMS launchers (nowhere near as good as ESSM cells, but they should be able to take out at least 1 AShM per launcher).  Now you're looking at 5-20 batteries of AShMs to wear the group down...that's 1 or 2 regiments of coastal artillery.

And 25% effectiveness, especially for an AEGIS ship, is probably pretty low; you could probably bump it up to 50% effectiveness, which means you're looking at 2-4 regiments (or an entire division) of coastal AShM artillery needed -- & all that not to sink it, but to just wear down its magazines so that your hypersonic missiles can slip by the CIWS?

Am I understanding right that this is the "enemy didn't play along" part?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 10:05 AM - Jun 09, 2015

11:25 PM - Yesterday #275

Maybe, except that wearing down some of your escorts is only a means to get them sent off for reloading. So the main attack comes later, probably multiple attacks. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 2:54 PM - Apr 10, 2005

11:47 PM - Yesterday #276

If the escorts leave, so does the carrier.  A mission kill that lasts as long as it takes to reload. If the USN doesn't plan for that, say by rotating carriers as required, I'd be surprised.  Chances are that unless the opponent is Russia or China, they''re going to run out of missiles first.  If it is one of those two, the missiles you need to worry about will not be targeted at carrier task forces, but at major economic and military targets in the US.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: 4:45 PM - Aug 11, 2015

5:39 AM - Today #277

Iran's been able to get to within visual range of US warships in the straits with boghammer type craft armed with basic machine guns and RPGs in the past haven't they? I seem to remember some PR video being posted somewhere where they'd get as close as they dared, enough to take pictures.

I suppose they could develop a SWATH type craft equipped with some manually operated machine guns so that they don't appear imposing.
Then keep it under wraps that the two propulsive pods of the SWATH design are actually 21" class torpedos...
Quote
Like
Share