![]() |
|
|||||||
|
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? |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#121 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#122 (permalink) |
|
Distant Deeps or Skies
Senior Contributor
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#126 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
![]() 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#127 (permalink) | |
|
Distant Deeps or Skies
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#128 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
![]() Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-23-2006 at 14:05 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#129 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#130 (permalink) | |
|
Distant Deeps or Skies
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#131 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Last edited by Dreadnought : 02-23-2006 at 15:21 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#132 (permalink) | |
|
New Member
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#134 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
![]() Last edited by Dreadnought : 03-06-2006 at 10:25 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#135 (permalink) |
|
Military Professional
|
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 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| 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 |