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

shen

shen

Senior Member
shouldn't anti ballistic missile system get its own thread? my post is obviously not about CIWS or anti cruise missile system.
 
S

strehl

Junior Member
Registered Member
shen said:
good technical info on this blog.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

This blog is by an arms control advocate and it colors all of his posts.

Warhead discrimination is probably one of the top R&D priorities at MDA but they naturally don't like to discuss it. Still, one of the examples is seen here:




Off hand, LIDAR, hyperspectral imaging, and precision 3D realtime ephemeris would be several possible techniques to discriminate a heavy object from low mass decoys.

My personal guess as to what the X37B spaceplane is doing is carrying out sensor research along these lines, along with ultra high precision imaging of orbiting satellites. Of course, the later is also being done from geosynchronous orbit by a dedicated platform (something revealed a year or two ago).

In any event, GMD testing includes debris/decoy discrimination as part of the plan and exoatmospheric intercepts by Aegis/THAAD are also involving more clutter in the target set.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
what's your opinion on large-caliber (2"+ so if hits, is able to take down an incoming missile _for sure_) CIWS as compared to small-caliber (due to a high rate of fire able to create so called cone-shaped cloud)?
shoot! :)
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Jura said: ↑
your kidding reminded me of an interesting question, which I posed where it would be on topic
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/modern-ciws-anti-missile-systems-deployed-and-in-development.t4350/
Modern CIWS & Anti-Missile Systems (Deployed and in development)

I did remember this post and I also remember reading in a book about the growth of the fighting distances of battleships in the late 19th century an anecdote of an army artillery officer being amazed at distance a coastal gun was able to hit a target at the first shot. This had needed correcting the targeting for atmospheric pressure, temperatures, wind direction and strength, matters outside the experience of the army man. I also remember hearing that during WWII German soldiers nearing the front in Russia couldn't light a fire because it was likely to be blown out, and they too, by a Russian artillery shelled targeted on the smoke.
I can imagine using a close in gun of larger calibre firing sub calibre shots at much higher muzzle velocity, i.e. a smooth bore tank gun firing armour piercing shot, at a large very high speed anti ship missile with very high precision.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
delft said:
... I also remember reading in a book about the growth of the fighting distances of battleships in the late 19th century an anecdote of an army artillery officer being amazed at distance a coastal gun was able to hit a target at the first shot. This had needed correcting the targeting for atmospheric pressure, temperatures, wind direction and strength, matters outside the experience of the army man.
Click to expand...
in general it's been much easier to hit by a coastal gun than by a gun on a ship (which is moving!), because on the coast the firing solution would be pre-computed (or pre-test-fired in the past), and a lookout would report just like 'Coming from #x' and the gun(s) would be quickly aimed at #x (for example a channel around some rock on the approach toward the harbor protected this way); also generally speaking, it's a matter of tactics if to require a hit by the first shot (or use 'a ladder' of some sort)

delft said:
I also remember hearing that during WWII German soldiers nearing the front in Russia couldn't light a fire because it was likely to be blown out, and they too, by a Russian artillery shelled targeted on the smoke.
Click to expand...
could be ... at that time they tried to conceal any lights for example in 1936-38 Czechoslovak bunkers the gun mounts (already narrow, of course) could be covered from INside; using oil lamp(s) would be allowed only if necessary, and for as short time as possible, inside ... if a commander had a flashlight, he would keep it close to his pistol, I guess

delft said:
I can imagine using a close in gun of larger calibre firing sub calibre shots at much higher muzzle velocity, i.e. a smooth bore tank gun firing armour piercing shot, at a large very high speed anti ship missile with very high precision.
Click to expand...
I'll go against 'very high precision' as used here by you, as I think a large caliber CIWS would use a fragmentation warhead (it wouldn't be like with a small caliber CIWS whose TINY bullet(s) should collide with an incoming missile ... but even then it's more complex as the cone-shaped cloud of such bullets is formed if you know what I'm saying)
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
schenkus said:
Jura said:
at the shortest range, I don't know how a railgun is supposed to work in its CIWS role:
would it shoot projectiles with a fragmentation warhead? or perhaps take advantage
of its projectile's speed to slam it into an incoming missile?? (dubious considering evasive
maneuvers but I won't delete it :) plus the advantage would be decisive only against subsonic missiles, I guess)
Click to expand...
I think the idea is that with an extremely high speed the projectiles will hit the missile "in between" the evasive maneuvers while its trajectory can be calculated.
Click to expand...
just thinking loud now:
  • without calculating anything, M7 is about 2400 m/s so I'm guessing two seconds before the planned impact of an incoming AShM is the time during which said missile wouldn't be intercepted if it managed to perform an abrupt maneuver (during those last two seconds of its flight);
  • in all the excitement, let's not forget in general the best tactics against any point-defense is to mount a saturation attack, so that a CIWS gun runs of out bullets, a SAM-system runs of out missiles, and a CIWS railgun runs out of power ... related is the next point:
  • what would be the 'latency' of a CIWS railgun, I mean when it would be able to shoot the next round, and the round after the next?? EDIT LOL I don't even know the 'duration' of a railgun shot if you know what I mean ... the time for which it needs the max. power input ... ANYONE?
 
Last edited:
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Jura said:
just thinking loud now:
  • without calculating anything, M7 is about 2400 m/s so I'm guessing two seconds before the planned impact of an incoming AShM is the time during which said missile wouldn't be intercepted if it managed to perform an abrupt maneuver (during those last two seconds of its flight);
  • in all the excitement, let's not forget in general the best tactics against any point-defense is to mount a saturation attack, so that a CIWS gun runs of out bullets, a SAM-system runs of out missiles, and a CIWS railgun runs out of power ... related is the next point:
  • what would be the 'latency' of a CIWS railgun, I mean when it would be able to shoot the next round, and the round after the next?? EDIT LOL I don't even know the 'duration' of a railgun shot if you know what I mean ... the time for which it needs the max. power input ... ANYONE?
Click to expand...

Current shipborne PDS is typically only good for 1 or most 2 shots. The idea is for the air defence screen to weed out most of the incoming bogeys before it gets to the terminal stage of impact. Chaff, flares and active ECM can hopefully do their part as well in concert with the CIWs. A bunch of missiles coming in from one general direction is also helpful for the defender.

However, quite honestly if you are alone at sea and still have half a dozen or more modern skimmers coming at you in the last couple of miles zeroing in from multiple different vectors, you better get on your knees quickly and make peace with God.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
kwaigonegin said:
...

However, quite honestly if you are alone at sea and still have half a dozen or more modern skimmers coming at you in the last couple of miles zeroing in from multiple different vectors, ...
Click to expand...
well if you implied a saturation attack (did you?), then it wouldn't matter from which direction(s) the missiles were coming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top