How effective are CIWS?

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

michaelemouse

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 10:29

Unread post28 Apr 2019, 15:59

Is there some open intel or educated guesses about the probability of kill of something like the Phalanx against anti-ship missiles, given roughly equal technology levels?

Any idea what it might be for missile-based CIWS?
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5259
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post28 Apr 2019, 16:22

Christ It Won't Shoot.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 08:53

It's really difficult to say as no CIWS system has actually shot down a missile in actual combat. In testing they have been successful, but tests are always done in very calculated and safe way against individual targets. In real combat things can be quite more complex and difficult as enemy will do their best to make things very difficult. So they can do things like launch multiple missiles with different flight paths but simultaneous impact time. So many missiles will be coming from different directions at about the same time. This is where missile based systems are better due to their much longer reach and ability to engage multiple simultaneous targets. It's really difficult to assess their effectiveness against modern anti-ship missiles in real world. In testing against target missiles they have worked pretty good recently, but it's impossible to know how close to real missiles those target missiles are.

I'd bet modern missile based systems would work pretty well against even modern missiles, especially against small number of missiles. Against larger number of missiles chances of killing every single one would diminish and lossess would be likely. Gun based CIWS are just last ditch defenses to cover the minimum range of missiles. They might be able to shoot down individual leakers but I would bet the ship would get damaged from the missile debris. Of course that is still preferable compared to eating fully functioning warhead and missile with fuel in it.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 13:19

I'd also say that against older and larger missiles like Silkworms both the missiles and guns are likely pretty effective. Those missiles have huge signatures and fly at higher altitude and basically fly in straight line during the final approach. So they are easily detected, tracked and engaged with weapons.

Truly modern missiles are much smaller and have very low radar and IR signatures. They also fly at very low altitudes trying to hide in sea clutter and can maneuver pretty well during final approach. A lot depends on how early the sensors in ship can detect them and how reliably they can track them. I think if the missile can be tracked, then it will likely get shot down. Of course swarming several missiles will increase chances of leaking at least one through.

Of course ships will also try to maneuver and employ both active and passive countermeasures (EW and chaff for example).
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2041
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 14:50

well its a bit difficult to answer. what exactly do you mean by "given roughly equal technology levels?" Is it like comparing the CWIS systems of this era to the cruise missiles of the same era?

The RIM-116 is probably one of the best missile based CIWS of the modern era
the SSM-700K can be considered the most modern iteration of the 80s era Harpoon
the AGM-158C is a very advanced stealth anti ship cruise missile with very high Situational awareness and Artificial intelligence.

I think the RIM-116 will enjoy more success against the SSM-700K, although they are both in the same era as the AGM-158C
Offline

sdkf251

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 11:02

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 15:00

I seem to remember long time ago the seawolf was able to intercept incoming missiles during the Falkland war. Not sure how it is classified, but I think it is a CIWS of sorts? It was so long ago that data should be available by now.

Hope this helps
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 16:12

hornetfinn wrote:It's really difficult to say as no CIWS system has actually shot down a missile in actual combat.


HMS Gloucester launched a Sea Dart to destroy a Silkworm launched at the Missouri during Desert Storm. Ironically the Phalanx on the USS Jarrett targeted Missouri's chaff instead (with a few rounds hitting Mo)....
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5259
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 20:20

pmi wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:It's really difficult to say as no CIWS system has actually shot down a missile in actual combat.


HMS Gloucester launched a Sea Dart to destroy a Silkworm launched at the Missouri during Desert Storm. Ironically the Phalanx on the USS Jarrett targeted Missouri's chaff instead (with a few rounds hitting Mo)....


Sea Dart wasn't a CIWS system.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2545
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 22:19

I once observed a CIWS (at sea) shoot a target off of the tow wire...
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5259
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post29 Apr 2019, 23:51

quicksilver wrote:I once observed a CIWS (at sea) shoot a target off of the tow wire...


Phalanx have shot down 5" rounds in testing as well.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3281
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post30 Apr 2019, 01:51

I heard a story about two phalanx firing at the same target and then following each other’s stream of bullets back toward each other.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5259
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post30 Apr 2019, 02:36

count_to_10 wrote:I heard a story about two phalanx firing at the same target and then following each other’s stream of bullets back toward each other.


I've heard several odd stories as well. Phalanx trying to shoot down parts of previously dispatched target. Phalanx trying to lock onto rotor-blade tips. Part of the learning process I gather.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2743
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post30 Apr 2019, 06:54

sferrin wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:I heard a story about two phalanx firing at the same target and then following each other’s stream of bullets back toward each other.


I've heard several odd stories as well. Phalanx trying to shoot down parts of previously dispatched target. Phalanx trying to lock onto rotor-blade tips. Part of the learning process I gather.


These things happen with automated air defence gun systems. Rotor-blade tips are very attractive for fire-control radar as they give very nice doppler returns for it. Those doppler returns can be easily filtered out, but in most systems those returns are wanted. Helos are difficult to track otherwise as they are very slow moving or stationary targets at low altitude which means they themselves don't give good doppler returns. This makes them difficult to separate from ground or sea clutter. I'm sure helos are also one potential (although not always very likely) target even for Phalanx.

Fire control radars following stream of bullets or towing cable is very normal. Phalanx especially has huge rate of fire and the stream is very continuous. It's basically like a cable for the fire control radar which means it's a very long and narrow target. However the radar doesn't really see that, but sees some part of the stream or cable as target which it tries to follow. The cable or stream of bullets however has very unstable radar signature and thus the "target" moves all the time in that stream or cable. I've personally fired at a target drogue and couple of seconds later the target tug (towing aircraft) is in the sights. The radar had followed the cable and target tug was a juicy target for it. Luckily there are many safeguards to prevent shooting down the target tug, but pilot in that thing must really have steel nerves in any case.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1672
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post01 May 2019, 11:59

I read a study about CIWS PK vs maneuver target and PK vs non maneuver target
Unfortunately, i forget to save the source and now i can't find it :bang:
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2214
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post01 May 2019, 13:21

I remember something about Goalkeeper advertising pointing out the failings of comparable CIWS that had a lot of information. To me their data suggested the system needed intelligence more so than their system, but that's me reading in between the lines.
Next

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests