Modern CIWS & Anti-Missile Systems (Deployed and in development)

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Fundamental characteristic of CIWS is a small parameter. CIWS is designed to intercept targets homing into the target it defends, not the ones which are meant for other targets and flying by. CIWS is not a collective defense weapon.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

I don't know if its such a good idea to replace the Type 730/1030 CIWS with FL-3000N launchers on their new ships. Didn't the Americans try that with some of their new AB class DDG's and they had to go back and retrofit those ships with the Phalanx CIWS.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Franklin said:

I don't know if its such a good idea to replace the Type 730/1030 CIWS with FL-3000N launchers on their new ships. Didn't the Americans try that with some of their new AB class DDG's and they had to go back and retrofit those ships with the Phalanx CIWS.

Click to expand...

The US went for a time not including Phalanx CIWS on new build Burke Flight IIA DDGs. The Flight I & II vessels have them, and the intial Flight IIA vessels did to. They did not replace them with RAM launchers.

They did begin quad packing ESSMs.

But they have since determined that the Phalanx is critical in the laytered defense and are now ensuring that they have them on the DDGs.

I believe each Burke should have two Phalnx and two RAMs, in additon to the ESSMs and Standard missiles. This would provide a trully superior layered defense.

Some US Carriers do have 2-3 Phalanx, 2 RAM launchers, and then two eight cell Sea Sparrow launchers which are being quad-packed with ESSM, making for a very decent self defense coverage which is layered out to mid-range.

That's 42 Rolling Airframe missiles and 64 ESSMs for carriers so armed, in addition to the 2-3 Phalanx.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

2 phalanx and 2 ram would indeed be a formidable CIWS set up for a surface combatant.

Personally I'd like to see such a set up on the Zumwalts before the burkes, given the Zumwalts are far larger, more expensive, and are more deserving of more capable self defence/survivability in general.

Franklin said:

I don't know if its such a good idea to replace the Type 730/1030 CIWS with FL-3000N launchers on their new ships. Didn't the Americans try that with some of their new AB class DDG's and they had to go back and retrofit those ships with the Phalanx CIWS.

Click to expand...

Like Jeff said, they did not include phalanx on some burkes for a while, but they never installed RAM on their burkes.

RAM works fine (if not better in in some respects) as a ciws compared to phalanx, from what I've read. I've never heard of instances where anyone has suggested phalanx is superior to RAM.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Bltizo said:

. I've never heard of instances where anyone has suggested phalanx is superior to RAM.

Click to expand...

Well, it is not that clear-cut :

- RIM-116 RAM missile is roughly based on AIM-9 . It uses IR and command-guidance , with some form of proportional navigation . Range is better then Phalanx , but the speed is not that impressive (max speed somewhat better then 2 Mach, but average speed less then that) . As such, RAM needs to calculate impact point with enemy AShM and fly there . That is relatively simple if the enemy missile flies on predictable path , or is relatively slow (subsonic) . But some of the modern ASMs fly very fast (supersonic) and employ wild terminal maneuvers (one example would be Klub missile) . Therefore, there is a high probability they would throw-off RAM

- Phalanx on the other hand has less range, but greater speed (muzzle velocity around 1100 m/s i.e. 3+ Mach) . Phalanx shot would also cover wider area and it does not need to lead target that much , effectively negating some of the maneuvers enemy missile may attempt . Unfortunately , one Phalanx system would usually engage just one missile in a salvo, unlike RAM able to engage multiple targets in one go .

Best practice would be to have both systems in one ship, and USN is doing just that .

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Bltizo said:

2 phalanx and 2 ram would indeed be a formidable CIWS set up for a surface combatant.

Personally I'd like to see such a set up on the Zumwalts before the burkes, given the Zumwalts are far larger, more expensive, and are more deserving of more capable self defence/survivability in general.



Like Jeff said, they did not include phalanx on some burkes for a while, but they never installed RAM on their burkes.

RAM works fine (if not better in in some respects) as a ciws compared to phalanx, from what I've read. I've never heard of instances where anyone has suggested phalanx is superior to RAM.

Click to expand...

It would be difficult to put r2d2s on the zumwalt w/o compromising it's stealth characteristics unless a specially made housing can be fabricated for it and ideal placement for optimum cover is even more challenging giving the design of the vessel.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

kwaigonegin said:

It would be difficult to put r2d2s on the zumwalt w/o compromising it's stealth characteristics unless a specially made housing can be fabricated for it and ideal placement for optimum cover is even more challenging giving the design of the vessel.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is obviously too late for it to wok optimally now. I imagine they can still place it if they really wanted to.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

thunderchief said:

the speed [of RAM] is not that impressive (max speed somewhat better then 2 Mach, but average speed less then that)
... greater speed [for Phalanx] (muzzle velocity around 1100 m/s i.e. 3+ Mach)

Click to expand...

But that's applying different meassueres here, isn't it. The average speed of a 20mm bullet is also going to be way less than muzzle velocity. A missile will at least be able to sustain speed for a few seconds, while a bullet instantly starts decelerating.

RAM needs to calculate impact point with enemy AShM and fly there [...] But some of the modern ASMs fly very fast (supersonic) and employ wild terminal maneuvers (one example would be Klub missile) . Therefore, there is a high probability they would throw-off RAM.
Phalanx shot would also cover wider area and it does not need to lead target that much , effectively negating some of the maneuvers enemy missile may attempt.

Click to expand...

Phalanx needs to calculate an impact point just the same. A guided missile is capable to adjust inflight, while a bullet is stuck with what the system thought the target would do at barrel exit.

Additionally, I think the RAM, besides IR, utilizes passive radar homing as a guidance mode, not command-guidance.
All that being said, it's probably never wrong to be able to point a stream of lead towards an incoming Vampire

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Scratch said:

Additionally, I think the RAM, besides IR, utilizes passive radar homing as a guidance mode, not command-guidance.
All that being said, it's probably never wrong to be able to point a stream of lead towards an incoming Vampire

Click to expand...

RAM, through live fire tests, has proven very effective and reliable.

Having both a RAM and a gun firing CIWS provides the most optimal close-in coverage.

But it is just that. Those systems are meant for close-in self defense. Not meant for area coverage, even short range. I suppose they could provide absolute point coverage for a vessel a few hundred yards away...but they are really not designed for that. If that is what is wanted...best to have the CIWS weapons on the vessel itself.

The Russians have developed a very effective close-in system that includes both in one launcher. 2 x 30mm Gatling guns with four ready missiles, with a magazine below decks for auto-loading more missiles as needed.

The Koreans employ both the RAM system and a goal keeper on their vessels.

I believe the Chinese could easily consider employing either a 730 or 1130 CIWS along with either an 8-cell or 24-cell launcher. That would be a very effective coverage for them. Generally, however, when you do that, you want both systems mounted on or near the centerline of the vessel.

I like the idea of four systems, one of each on each side. Lessens the needs for fast maneuvering to bring one or the other to bear as a missile approaches. Is that overkill? Perhaps some would say it is. But when you are dealing with (in the US Case) a Burke DDG with several hundred highly trained personnel on board and equipment worth well over $1 billion dollars...I don't think so.

Re: AEGIS and AEGIS Like escort combatants of the World

I can't really find a correct thread, so I put it here since it's somewhat AAW related and out of the Type 054A FFG thread, were it doesn't really belong either:

Jeff Head said:

RAM, through live fire tests, has proven very effective and reliable.

Having both a RAM and a gun firing CIWS provides the most optimal close-in coverage.

The Russians have developed a very effective close-in system that includes both in one launcher. 2 x 30mm Gatling guns with four ready missiles, with a magazine below decks for auto-loading more missiles as needed.

The Koreans employ both the RAM system and a goal keeper on their vessels.

Click to expand...

Indeed, RAM is quite a successfull story. On a side note, between 2016 and 2019 the german navy will aquire 445 Block2 missiles. I think other nations are looking for a deal as well, or have already done so. The USN should now be in the process of getting those Block 2s, if I'm correct?

For a high-end CIWS, I would like to see RAM launchers supported by two Skyshield unites withe AHEAD capability integrated into the whole system.

For the next level up, providing more then self-defense, we have ESSM. For another step in between on smaller vessels, a naval NASMS / SLAMRAAM sounds interesting to me. Might be an option for the upgraded LCSs not getting VLS now. This might already have been suggested in the LCS thread.