Thread: Littoral Combat Ship Analysis

Originally Posted by PubFather

I don't know a definitive answer - but if SeaRam simply replaces the Phalanx gun, surely it uses the same radar and therefore can track the same number of targets?? The other advantage of RAM is that it is fire-n-forget. The launching at different angles described earlier worries me - simply because I think it shows that the seeker head has a very limited engagement radius. Wouldnt it be an idea to eventually upgrade the seeker from a Stinger one to that of a Sidewinder X?

The RAM missile IS in fact a modified Sidewinder. That's what General Dynamics bragged about when they demonstrated the system to us. Don't know about the X designation, but almost ALL tracking AND targeting Radars of most missiles is only 30 degrees. That is why a 15 degree slope of a ship's bulkhead will DEflect a Radar beam back OVER the missile rather than REflect it back into the dish.

That's part of Stealth. Radar Absorbent Material (another RAM) is for vertical surfaces and inside corners.

Also, the 25 mm Chain gun takes about 4 to 6 men to operate and keep supplied with ammo. An M2 Browning takes only 2 men; one to shoot and one to open up ammo boxes and slip them into the cradle. For that matter, if all the ammo boxes are already on deck, it only takes one man to put out some very serious machine gun fire.

Originally Posted by gunnut

How is that possible?

We throw away billions of dollars on expensive, exotic, unproven weapon systems but we don't have money for stuff that actually works?

Wait...

In reference to your concern where I stated that the 25 mm Chain guns had to be swapped from ship to ship.

When Rapid Blooming Overside Chaff (RBOC) first came out, it too was a swap item for ships coming back from Nam to ships going over there. When New Jersey was over there in 1968 she also had Chaffroc (Chaff rocket) launchers but they stayed aboard when inactivated. But the new and improved SUPER RBOC became a permanent installation on all four BB's in the 80's.

I don't recall if the Rubber Ducky was going to be a permanent installation or not on the BB's as we just started coming up with locations for it when BB funding started to dwindle down and talk of inactivation was dwindling up.

Rusty Battleship,
Your point about the crew required for manning the 25mm Chain gun is a good one. I suppose that couldnt end up being a useful solution. What it comes down to though for me is that in the situation of a sudden massed small boat attack, say for example off the Niger Delta or coast of Somalia, there might not be time for the Saliors to crew the .50 cals. In that sort of a situation I think that a CIWS would have the faster reaction time. There is still the 57mm, but I still feel that it would be a good idea to complement the RAM with CIWS.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

That is what I always assumed too.

Does anyone know how many concurrent targets a single RAM mount can track? Could it engage more than 1-2 either?

10.5 for a Mk31 mount, 5.5 for a SeaRam mount.

RAM is fire and forget and two missiles are automatically fired at each incoming missile.

You'd never get that many missiles salvoed in the time THAT MANY threats closed to RAM range with a Mk31 mount(i think the firing cycle is 2-3 seconds for the mk31), but supposedly the SeaRam mount can fire off all it's missiles in a couple seconds cause all the seekers are exposed so all of them can start automatically acquiring prioritized targets simultanously based on the Phalanx phased array radar picture. The missiles are command guidance launched, and lock on after they're out of the tubes, so theoretically as long as all the inbounds are coming along one fairly narrow axis a single SeaRam mount can theoretically handle 5 incoming missiles with one RAM missile left over.

If a single mount did half of that in real life, i'd say that's pretty good.

Originally Posted by HKDan

Rusty Battleship,
Your point about the crew required for manning the 25mm Chain gun is a good one. I suppose that couldnt end up being a useful solution. What it comes down to though for me is that in the situation of a sudden massed small boat attack, say for example off the Niger Delta or coast of Somalia, there might not be time for the Saliors to crew the .50 cals. In that sort of a situation I think that a CIWS would have the faster reaction time. There is still the 57mm, but I still feel that it would be a good idea to complement the RAM with CIWS.

In a hazardous area, guns are manned at all times. All guns. Even in US Coastal waters under certain conditions. When we were loading ammo on the New Jersey off of Seal Beach, California, all four .50 caliber machine guns were mounted, manned (by Marines) and loaded.

But the CIWS programming may be a problem as they are designed to shoot down fast flying and INCOMING threats. They are NOT programmed to shoot at anything floating on the water and perhaps parallel to your course. (The scene from "Under Siege" is therefore totally incorrect where a CIWS shoots down a parallel flying aircraft).

So you can't depend upon automatic response from CIWS to take on a gun boat. The CIWS can be manually operated for such a target, but not as accurately as somebody actually behind a gun and aiming with sights.

I understand the hazards of various coastal areas. For about a year I did some ship inspections for a company that investigated the vulnerability of commercial ships to Terrorist and Pirate attacks. Only some MARAD ships can safely go through the Jarcarta Straights or come close to the south shores of Mindanao. They are allowed to carry guns and most have a good mix of small arms from pistols and up through and including the venerable "Mah Deuce".

Well, there is one company I know of that has an excellent protection system against boarders. Since he has used that system not a single one of his ships have suffered a take over or crew casualties. Not too many pirates appreciate the sight of a couple of Rotweilers with bared fangs charging down the deck in your direction.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

But the CIWS programming may be a problem as they are designed to shoot down fast flying and INCOMING threats. They are NOT programmed to shoot at anything floating on the water and perhaps parallel to your course. (The scene from "Under Siege" is therefore totally incorrect where a CIWS shoots down a parallel flying aircraft).

AHA! Someone else finally mentioned it. I remember watching that movie in the theater and almost laughed when the CIWS engaged a slow flying Hornet parallel to the ship.

But isn't there a way to manually aim the CIWS using the onboard camara? Is there a console somewhere on the ship that has a switch for the CIWS along with a monitor and a joystick?

Originally Posted by gunnut

AHA! Someone else finally mentioned it. I remember watching that movie in the theater and almost laughed when the CIWS engaged a slow flying Hornet parallel to the ship.

But isn't there a way to manually aim the CIWS using the onboard camara? Is there a console somewhere on the ship that has a switch for the CIWS along with a monitor and a joystick?

There is a control room for CIWS separate from other weapons controls. On the BB's there were two control rooms. One room was between the port and stbd guns up forward and one between the port and stbd guns AND the armored magazines aft.

I'm not a sparktrician type but when I looked into the rooms after installation was complete, I did not see anything that looked like a camera monitor or Nintendo screen. So, how the manual control actually was supposed to work was not passed on down to me. Though the structural design of the rooms was my responsibility, what went inside them was not on my "Need to Know" list.

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

So you can't depend upon automatic response from CIWS to take on a gun boat. The CIWS can be manually operated for such a target, but not as accurately as somebody actually behind a gun and aiming with sights.

The latest version (Block1B) uses a FLIR with a guy sitting in CIC with a joystick and a TV screen. It was introducted after the Cole, and has been widely fielded since.

Hard to believe that would be anything but death ray accurate against speed boats at 1000 yds or less.

Im sorry, I wasnt specific enough. I was referring to the latest version of the CIWS. I still think that it would provide a better response against a small boat attack. I hadnt been aware that the .50 cals would be manned at all times. Is that still going to be possible for the LCS and the very reduced crew that they want to put on it? I really wonder about that. I may be way off base here, but I am envisioning the LCS spending most of its time operating very close to the shore of failed states and in choke points for shipping. While the LCS will need to be capable against other threats, I suspect that small boats will be what is most commonly faced and thats where my concern about this is coming from. Anyway, thanks much for all the great feedback so far.