2008 Election | The Pub | The Field Mess | The Staff College | Bookmark WAB


Go Back   World Affairs Board > Military Forums > Naval Forces
Register FAQ WAB RSS Feed Forum GuidelinesMembers List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!

The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2006, 12:48 PM   #121 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,534
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
The standard US fighter gun since the mid 1950's has been the 20mm Vulcan cannon.

The same exact gun employed by the Phalanx CIWS.

Since the 1950s US fighters have scored god only knows how many gun kills with their Vulcans.

I don't know about you, but i would not want to be in an SU-27(over 20 tons full combat load) that got hit with a 1 second burst of 20mm APDSDU cannon fire!(about 80rounds).

A 20mm APDSDU round will penetrate around 2" of steel plate armor, i therefore don't see a problem getting into the guts of a missile.

To me, the main drawback of the Phalanx system was the short range of the 20mm round, not any problem with firepower or destructiveness. The Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS goes a long way toward correcting that problem, and also has the benefit of firing the FAR more powerful 30x173mm cartridge of the A-10 warthog.
Got a goalkeeper for the flatbed?
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2006, 15:38 PM   #122 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid
Distant Deeps or Skies
Senior Contributor
 
HistoricalDavid's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-19-05
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 2,100
Country:
Unless he has to strafe the ship with gunfire, how will an aircraft get within the range of a CIWS anyway? Gun kills are perfectly possible in air war because you are mobile; I cannot similarly envision a battle group sailing at impressive 31 knots to catch a 200+ knot Sukhoi. He will be shot down by the carrier's aircraft or the battle group's AA missiles anyway. Not to denigrate the Phalanx... but it is still a largely immobile gun system against an aircraft, even with a huge RoF and a sizeable round. I can't imagine a 30mm round solving that problem of range versus aircraft, but that's irrelevant because sadly, the Goalkeeper is not aboard your ships.

That's how I can't envision it being used against aircraft, not because it hasn't got the firepower.

Now against missiles, my original question still stands; can it destroy such a large missile totally as to prevent what I said?
HistoricalDavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2006, 15:50 PM   #123 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,534
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Unless he has to strafe the ship with gunfire, how will an aircraft get within the range of a CIWS anyway? Gun kills are perfectly possible in air war because you are mobile; I cannot similarly envision a battle group sailing at impressive 31 knots to catch a 200+ knot Sukhoi. He will be shot down by the carrier's aircraft or the battle group's AA missiles anyway. Not to denigrate the Phalanx... but it is still a largely immobile gun system against an aircraft, even with a huge RoF and a sizeable round. I can't imagine a 30mm round solving that problem of range versus aircraft, but that's irrelevant because sadly, the Goalkeeper is not aboard your ships.

That's how I can't envision it being used against aircraft, not because it hasn't got the firepower.

Now against missiles, my original question still stands; can it destroy such a large missile totally as to prevent what I said?
My guess is no. Somewhere if I can recall I read a story about a sailor onboard a USN destroyer that destroyed an incoming torpedo with a 20mm AA gun the sailor was killed and the ship slightly damaged but saved his crew and ship for even more damage and they were not mission killed.

Further when Operation Dessert Storm had come into play two silkworm missles were shot at a USN Battleship Missouri. One missed altogether but 1 made a beeline for Missouri and was intercepted by two Sea Dart missles from the destroyer HMS Gloucester (D96). Missouri could have easily defended herself by having the CIWS go active but it was not necessary as her escorts quickly demonstrated also had it (CIWS) gone active there may have been alot more casualities on the decks of her escorts that day that were well within her range.

Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-22-2006 at 16:04 PM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2006, 17:05 PM   #124 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid
Distant Deeps or Skies
Senior Contributor
 
HistoricalDavid's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-19-05
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 2,100
Country:
The 20mm guy destroyed the torpedo? I think it was a missile. :p

Anyway, although the CIWS has a far higher RoF, the Granit is far larger and faster.
HistoricalDavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 03:00 AM   #125 (permalink)
Dago
Patron
 
Join Date: 02-23-06
Posts: 239
Country:
Send a message via MSN to Dago
Carrier Killer? Well, first you need to provide accurate OTH-T date before it can even be considered a "Carrier Killer" not to mention you can factor in the Quad Packed ESSM cells (40km?) and the large amount of SM-2 ER's in a CVBG.
Dago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 09:08 AM   #126 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,534
Country:
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
The 20mm guy destroyed the torpedo? I think it was a missile. :p

Anyway, although the CIWS has a far higher RoF, the Granit is far larger and faster.
No it wasnt a missle shot I believe it was AA gun fire.

I would rather have the higher rate of fire in CIWS or larger caliber Goalkeeper.
Why have something larger and faster if it cant produce the firepower that CIWS can being smaller and more compact with a higher rate of fire. More bullets in the air gives it a better chance and destroying or deflecting the incoming missle.
Granit is also fairly newer then CIWS no?
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 12:59 PM   #127 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid
Distant Deeps or Skies
Senior Contributor
 
HistoricalDavid's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-19-05
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 2,100
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
I would rather have the higher rate of fire in CIWS or larger caliber Goalkeeper.
Okay, this has gone far enough. CIWS is at best a last-resort system because of the missiles I originally listed.
HistoricalDavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 14:00 PM   #128 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,534
Country:
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Okay, this has gone far enough. CIWS is at best a last-resort system because of the missiles I originally listed.
Soo in other words CIWS would not take out those missles that you have listed above? Is this what you are stating?

Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-23-2006 at 14:05 PM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 14:53 PM   #129 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,534
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Never heard of that happening, or even being designed for it, but I'll take your word on it. It did have difficulty intercepting that slow Silkworm during the Gulf War.

What I'm thinking of is pieces of a chewed-up Granit still having enough momentum to do damage to the ship.
David,
Just so you know CIWS aboard USS Missouri did go active when Missouri was fired upon by the Iraqi's using silkworms from a stern position. However SeaDart missles from the frigate HMS Gloucester intercepted the missle long before it came into CIWS range. Hence the escorts did their jobs so Missouri stays on station on mission doing what she does best throwing 16" shells where they are needed. Missouri fired not one shot at the incoming Iraqi silkworm although she was more then ready too.

*So in any case the CIWS system was not slow at all. Merely, it didnt fire at all because it didnt have to. According to the ships report CIWS was ready and standing by after chafes were already launched and they watched the missle incoming get destroyed by the SeaDarts fired by Gloucester.


Would pieces of an exploded missle still hit the ship?

Yes, physics prove that pieces would still hit any ship if the range was in close irregardless of the defensive weapon used to counter it. The very same would happen to the Granit system as well pending the interception range of the incoming missle. If any missle is allowed to close the range on the ship and it is intercepted chances are its raining little peices of missle casement all over the area, ship,water etc. No missle interceptor is going to vaporize the incoming missle totally. Not CIWS, Not Goalkeeper, and not Granit or any other missle system either.

Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-23-2006 at 15:22 PM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 15:08 PM   #130 (permalink)
HistoricalDavid
Distant Deeps or Skies
Senior Contributor
 
HistoricalDavid's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-19-05
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 2,100
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Soo in other words CIWS would not take out those missles that you have listed above? Is this what you are stating?
...No, I listed the anti-missile missiles such as the SM-2, RAM and ESSM which have far longer engagement ranges than any gun system and hence answers your other post; with missiles there is now a far larger distance between the point when the missile is being hit and the ship itself.

I'm assuming those systems which I mentioned would be able to intercept the missile first. That's why the CIWS is a last resort.
HistoricalDavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 15:19 PM   #131 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,534
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
...No, I listed the anti-missile missiles such as the SM-2, RAM and ESSM which have far longer engagement ranges than any gun system and hence answers your other post; with missiles there is now a far larger distance between the point when the missile is being hit and the ship itself.

I'm assuming those systems which I mentioned would be able to intercept the missile first. That's why the CIWS is a last resort.
Considering CIWS in close in yes. Missles definately have longer range then guns.

Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-23-2006 at 15:21 PM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2006, 18:10 PM   #132 (permalink)
Anon
New Member
 
Join Date: 08-03-03
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid
Unless he has to strafe the ship with gunfire, how will an aircraft get within the range of a CIWS anyway? Gun kills are perfectly possible in air war because you are mobile; I cannot similarly envision a battle group sailing at impressive 31 knots to catch a 200+ knot Sukhoi. He will be shot down by the carrier's aircraft or the battle group's AA missiles anyway. Not to denigrate the Phalanx... but it is still a largely immobile gun system against an aircraft, even with a huge RoF and a sizeable round. I can't imagine a 30mm round solving that problem of range versus aircraft, but that's irrelevant because sadly, the Goalkeeper is not aboard your ships.

That's how I can't envision it being used against aircraft, not because it hasn't got the firepower.

Now against missiles, my original question still stands; can it destroy such a large missile totally as to prevent what I said?
You miss my point.

My point was that if a 20mm vulcan will tear a 20 plus ton fighter to shreds in a second, a missile with 1/3 the mass has no chance at all.

That was my point.
Anon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2006, 22:37 PM   #133 (permalink)
Enzo Ferrari
Patron
 
Join Date: 04-15-05
Posts: 189
In theory the best "Carrier Killer" is the Carriers and their aircrafts themselves, this is concluded by the Soviets themselves as they tried to made some before their collapse, get over it.
Enzo Ferrari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2006, 10:18 AM   #134 (permalink)
Dreadnought
Senior Contributor
 
Dreadnought's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-12-05
Posts: 5,534
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enzo Ferrari
In theory the best "Carrier Killer" is the Carriers and their aircrafts themselves, this is concluded by the Soviets themselves as they tried to made some before their collapse, get over it.
Sorry, IMO but I would have to side with a submarine having a better chance then anybody and downing a carrier quickly and surgically. That is if you can reach through her escorts

Last edited by Dreadnought : 03-06-2006 at 10:25 AM.
Dreadnought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2006, 21:24 PM   #135 (permalink)
Sandman
Military Professional
 
Sandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-05-05
Location: Northern Michigan
Posts: 218
Country:
http://www.natoseasparrow.org/art/ES.../ESSM-SDTS.wmv

Missiles seem to be well covered by the latest in antimissile tech. Torpedos seem to be another issue.

Russians have these things;

http://www.airshow.ru/expo/587/prod_570.htm
Sandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carrier Battle Group Essay rickusn Naval Forces 56 09-05-2007 12:27 PM
Favorite Naval Book(s) RAL's_pal? Naval Forces 62 02-09-2007 04:46 AM
An Interseting article.... rickusn Naval Forces 2 05-10-2005 06:59 AM
World Naval Rankings rickusn Naval Forces 66 03-04-2005 01:11 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:26 PM.


Rochen is the business hosting sponsor of World Affairs Board and a provider of reseller web hosting services.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8