Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Phalanx CIWS for PN warships; How effective is it??
Topic Started: Jul 19 2006, 09:46 AM (4,743 Views)
israeli
Member Avatar


so which between the Phalanx CIWS and either the OTO Melara 76 mm or the Bofors 57 mm would be a better buy for the Philippine Navy or any navy for that matter? :dunno:

if we are to invest in the Phalanx CIWS, instead of installing it on a Jurassic-era warship, why not invest in a totally new warship? :armywink:
"To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
el_ramon
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Also dont forget the Goalkeeper CIWS

Posted Image

The thing use's the A-10 warthog's main cannon..
the GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm gun(yung barrel pa lang kasing laki na ng kotse)!

anyway,here's the quick facts..i'll just quote wikipedia..


Comparison to Phalanx

The Phalanx CIWS system is another system that is widely used in the same role, there are several key differences between the two systems:

*Goalkeepers projectiles are much larger (30 mm versus 20 mm) and have greater Kinetic energy.

*Goalkeeper is twice as expensive as the Phalanx.

*Phalanx can be welded to any section of deck and plugged in, while Goalkeeper requires significant 'deck penetration' and integration.

*Phalanx can only track and engage one target at a time, while Goalkeeper can track 18 targets and switch to engage the greatest threat.

*Both weapons have similar maximum ranges, however Goalkeepers kill distance is reportedly slightly further (500 to 350 meters compared to 300 meters for the Phalanx).

*Phalanx ammo drum is mounted directly on the gun, the Goalkeeper is reloaded from below deck.



phalanx reported price is $5+m goalkeeper is double that :armyeek:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gemini1
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

medyo maliit ang effective range nang ciws (kaya close in weapon or "last chance"). ang pinakamalayo ay kung hangang saan aabot ang bala at ang pinakamapit ay kung saan nababasa o nai-interpret nang computer ang radar return. there comes a point were this distance is just too short and the ciws may simply reset itself. my guess is the phalanx did not start firing until the missile was almost out of the window. if there was a hit, it wasnt enough to bring the missile down[/color].

Although the max range of the Phalanx CIWS is classified, since the gun itself is the M61A1 gatling gun, we can safely say the max range is several thousand yards. So if the CIWS's radar detection was activated, it would have enough time to shoot down the missile. The reason why the SAAR5s CIWS did not work was already mentioned on an earlier post by Possible;

Navy probe: Faulty intelligence behind missile ship hit

The Israeli warship's crew had only twenty seconds in which to identify the threat and respond.

The investigation found that at around 8 pm the Iranian-made missile was fired at the missile ship and exploded above it. The explosion and shock wave caused a fire and a hole in the vessel. Four crew were at first reported missing; they were later found dead.

According to the results of the investigation, in the absence of intelligence about anti-ship missiles, no such threat was defined in advance, and the missile ships' systems were deployed in standby mode and not in ready-to-fire mode.
Although the ship's defense systems spotted the incoming Iranian missile, the problem was cognitive. Because of the missile's speed and the short distance of the ship from shore (16 kilometers), and because the crew was unprepared for this kind of threat, the radar and electronic warfare systems operators had only 20 seconds to realize that they were under attack by an enemy missile.

The probe also found that a greater disaster was only narrowly avoided. Hizbullah fired two missiles at the ship. One missile hit and destroyed a Cambodian vessel with an Egyptian crew sailing a few dozen kilometers from the Israeli missile ship. The second missile hit the Israeli warship. Luckily, for unknown reasons, Hizbullah did not fire a third missile. The assessment is that a third missile could have sunk the Israeli ship.

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/Doc...114951&fid=1725
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m61.htm

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frenzy
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Other than the Phalanx and the Goalkeeper, what other CIWS are being used out there, any russian and Chinese equivalents?

Any possibiity for the PN to build a DIY variant with assistance from the MAPUA and AMA guys?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
saver111
Member Avatar
PDFF Moderator
PDFF Mod Group
Frenzy
Jul 27 2006, 03:11 PM
Other than the Phalanx and the Goalkeeper, what other CIWS are being used out there, any russian and Chinese equivalents?

Any possibiity for the PN to build a DIY variant with assistance from the MAPUA and AMA guys?

Yeah and maybe try something similar like the Metal Storm:

Quote:
 
The system is designed to include the following features and benefits:
•  Firepower.  RedbackTM deploys multiple 40mm Metal Storm barrels firing a range of munitions at selectable rates of fire, including the ability to engage up to 3 targets in 1.2 seconds. With EOS precision sensors and control systems, this results in intense directed firepower.
•  Light.  RedbackTM will be available in system weights from 70-100 kg - less than one conventionally-equipped combatant.
•  Fast.  RedbackTM control and servo systems will allow multiple threats to be engaged , fast enough to engage incoming missiles and projectiles for vehicle defence.


http://www.metalstorm.com/
http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=ne...0Live%20Firings

Posted Image

Just dreaming guys...
Posted Image

Justice for Daniel Lorenz Jacinto

HELP END PIRACY NOW!:
http://www.itfseafarers.org/petition.cfm
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tirad
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Frenzy
Jul 27 2006, 03:11 PM
Other than the Phalanx and the Goalkeeper, what other CIWS are being used out there,

The Rheinmetall/Oerlikon 35mm "Seaguard" looks like an impressive CIWS...

www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=3528〈=3

Posted ImagePosted Image
.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fizzy123
Trainee
[ *  * ]
The RAFAEL typhoon rapid fire 30mm gun is good against suicide bomber boats and has the abilities of CIWS
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
el_ramon
Member
[ *  *  * ]

Posted Image

nice to know like a kitchen tool,such a deadly weapon has many uses..CIWS

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gemini1
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Iranian C-802 Anti-Ship Missiles Suck

August 29, 2006: The use of two Iranian C-802 anti-ship missiles against an Israeli warship on July 14th, left some unanswered questions in its wake. For one thing, why wasn???t the 1,100 ton Israeli corvette destroyed by the 360 pound warhead of the C-802? And why weren???t the ships anti-missile defenses turned on?

The answers finally came out, and say a lot about modern warfare. First, the C-802 missile that hit the helicopter hanger on the Israeli ship suffered from a common problem with missiles. The warhead failed to go off. The fire on the Israeli ship was caused by the half a ton of missile crashing into it, and unburned rocket fuel. The other C-802 fired, homed in on a nearby Egyptian ship, and sank it (the warhead on that one did detonate). The Israeli anti-missile system was not turned on because it was found to interfere with the electronics on Israeli warplanes operating in the vicinity. This is also an increasing problem in modern warfare. There are so many electronic gadgets transmitting, that there are more cases of signals, literally, getting crossed.

The C-802 is a 20 foot long, 360mm, 1,500 pound missile with a 360 pound warhead. The Israeli warship carries electronic defenses against anti-ship missiles, as well as a Phalanx auto-cannon. This systems is supposed to be turned on whenever the ship is likely to have an anti-ship missile fired at it. The Phalanx radar can spot incoming missiles out to about 5,000 meters, and the 20mm cannon is effective out to about 2,000 meters. With incoming missiles moving a 250 meters a second, you can see why Phalanx is set to automatic. There???s not much time for human intervention.

The C-802 needs to work with a radar that can track the target. The C-802 apparently used Lebanese government coastal radars for this. The Israelis destroyed those radars after their ship was hit, and no more C-802s were fired. The C-802 is 30 year old technology, and Iranian quality control in its weapons plants is known to be uneven.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/ar...s/20060829.aspx

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
el_ramon
Member
[ *  *  * ]
@tirad..any idea about the unit cost of that reinmetal 35mm cisw?
sana yan na lang kinabit sa jacinto class no? hehe..sana.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic »
Add Reply