Thread: Carrier killers (an article from JED online)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.