| 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: |
| Phalanx CIWS for PN warships; How effective is it?? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 19 2006, 09:46 AM (4,743 Views) | |
| israeli | Jul 27 2006, 01:22 AM Post #11 |
![]()
|
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? ![]() 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?
|
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| el_ramon | Jul 27 2006, 03:51 AM Post #12 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Also dont forget the Goalkeeper CIWS![]() 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 |
![]() |
|
| gemini1 | Jul 27 2006, 11:41 AM Post #13 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Frenzy | Jul 27 2006, 03:11 PM Post #14 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| saver111 | Jul 27 2006, 10:20 PM Post #15 |
|
PDFF Moderator
![]()
|
Yeah and maybe try something similar like the Metal Storm:
http://www.metalstorm.com/ http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=ne...0Live%20Firings ![]() Just dreaming guys... |
|
Justice for Daniel Lorenz Jacinto HELP END PIRACY NOW!: http://www.itfseafarers.org/petition.cfm | |
![]() |
|
| tirad | Jul 27 2006, 10:23 PM Post #16 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Rheinmetall/Oerlikon 35mm "Seaguard" looks like an impressive CIWS... www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=3528〈=3 ![]() ![]() . |
![]() |
|
| fizzy123 | Jul 27 2006, 11:16 PM Post #17 |
|
Trainee
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The RAFAEL typhoon rapid fire 30mm gun is good against suicide bomber boats and has the abilities of CIWS |
![]() |
|
| el_ramon | Jul 31 2006, 04:50 PM Post #18 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() nice to know like a kitchen tool,such a deadly weapon has many uses..CIWS |
![]() |
|
| gemini1 | Aug 30 2006, 11:10 AM Post #19 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| el_ramon | Nov 21 2006, 08:44 PM Post #20 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@tirad..any idea about the unit cost of that reinmetal 35mm cisw? sana yan na lang kinabit sa jacinto class no? hehe..sana. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic » |










![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






8:34 AM Jul 11