Page 3 of 5

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 19:32
by sferrin
marauder2048 wrote:
sferrin wrote:
But is 12Gs at Mach 2.5 really much of a turn? Here's a Vandal getting shot down by ESSM years ago performing a 10G weave at Mach 2+



For a conventional (non-airbursting, unguided) single mount, gun-based CIWS, absolutely.

Even for large caliber (76mm) dual-mounts firing airburst rounds some of the analysis I've read is
pretty sobering for 10G targets.


"Limitations of Guns as a Defence against Manoeuvring Air Weapons"
(my OCR'ed version attached).

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a426717.pdf


Jesus, I guess I need to pay attention. Guns are terrible solutions for dealing with swarms. isn't that what they're trying to do with MAD-FIRES though? :?

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 21:28
by madrat
Guns are the method of delivery vehicle not the mode of guidance.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2019, 23:06
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Guns are the method of delivery vehicle not the mode of guidance.


Even Super Rapido with DART:



and two or three of them in the case of the Horizon class. . . Well, I wouldn't want to be in an Iranian speedboat but against a supersonic missile? I'd rather have Goalkeeper or SeaRAM.

1920px-Andrea_Doria_(D_553).jpg

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 08:59
by hornetfinn
High speed is good for reducing the target reaction time, but at the same time has some drawbacks. High speed usually means higher flight altitude is required to avoid hitting the waves. This gives somewhat longer radar horizon and makes it easier to pick up the missile early. So that takes aways some advantage in reaction time. High speed also means much higher IR signature which makes it easy for IR sensors to detect the missile early. Radar signature is also likely much higher as high speed makes it far more difficult to reduce RCS. Shaping needs to t

Other drawback of high speed is that missile is necessarily much larger or has shorter range and smaller warhead. That also makes it easier to detect and lowers the number of missiles in any engagement.

IMO, stealth and slow speed system is superior overall. But that requires the capability to produce such high level stealth to make detection and engagement very difficult. High speed missiles are easier to make and can make defending against them pretty difficult. Especially for CIWS systems as they can only engage one target at a time and engaging other targets takes some time.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 09:41
by milosh
zero-one wrote:To me, its the AGM-158C. Its main strengths include VLO technology, very long range and low sea skimming capabilities and most importantly it is the only missile I know that has its own ESM and RWR. This means that it is the 1st missile of its kind that actually knows if it is being tracked and targeted by CIWS or other defenses.

Sure, other ASuW weapons are much faster, but they are flying blind against anti missile defenses and once they start executing their end game maneuvers which are pre-programmed and not designed to adjust to enemy defenses, they will throw all that speed out the window. Can the Brahmos and Klub missiles maneuver at supersonic speeds?


Soviet P-500/700/1000 all have internal jammer. I don't know for P-800 (Onix/Brahmos) but probable it have jammer also.

Klub isn't supersonic there was proposed two stage variant which would be stealthy supersonic stage for thermal phase but I don't think it was developed because they start working in that time on Zircon. Indians mentioned Brahmos-2 rcs is lot smaller then Brahmos-1 and that is only from shape, not some exotics mentioned by Russians lately.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 13:08
by sferrin
milosh wrote:Soviet P-500/700/1000 all have internal jammer.


That's only going to help the defending missile if it's designed to home in on RF energy. Like this one:

C43g3pDWcAUSWiT.jpg

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 13:23
by hornetfinn
No wonder RIM-116 was fielded at about the same time as P-700 and some other advanced Soviet anti-ship missiles which all used active radar guidance and which also possibly had ECM equipment. RIM-116 definitely gave superior multi-target capability and longer reach than CIWS systems. I think even if Phalanx managed to kill P-700 missile, the ship would likely be pretty seriously damaged due to size and speed of that missile.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2019, 23:02
by marauder2048
sferrin wrote:
Jesus, I guess I need to pay attention. Guns are terrible solutions for dealing with swarms. isn't that what they're trying to do with MAD-FIRES though? :?


Ah. MAD-FIRES and Alamo are both guided rounds. So the probability of hit is no longer just a function of
gun dispersion, time of flight and burst radius in the case of airburst munitions. Guidance should dramatically
reduce the number of rounds that need to be expended to achieve a hit which translates to tolerable
rates of fire for medium caliber mounts.


hornetfinn wrote:No wonder RIM-116 was fielded at about the same time as P-700 and some other advanced Soviet anti-ship missiles which all used active radar guidance and which also possibly had ECM equipment


SM-2 Block IIIb (with IR seeker) was also developed specifically to counter ASCMs with terrain-bounce jammers.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 02:05
by madrat
They probably aren't far off from giving mid-course re-targeting of outbound gun-deployed smart rounds. It seems like they pretty much evolve all uses of guidance technology across the spectrum of weapons over time. Being able to re-purpose a round after target disintegration would be a natural next step.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2019, 11:54
by sferrin
madrat wrote:They probably aren't far off from giving mid-course re-targeting of outbound gun-deployed smart rounds. It seems like they pretty much evolve all uses of guidance technology across the spectrum of weapons over time. Being able to re-purpose a round after target disintegration would be a natural next step.


I think this is generally what they have in mind when the USN talks about using hypersonic rounds, developed for railguns, in the Anti missile mode.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/produc ... ectile-hvp

image.jpg


img.png

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 02:50
by count_to_10
The trick up to recently has been making a guidance system rugged enough to survive gun launch, but that problem appears to have been solved. Warhead triggering is the holy grail, but they may have to settle for less.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 04:04
by popcorn
Not quité CIWS but the Navy should soon be fielding cost-effective guided HVP rounds fired from 5-inch deck cannon to provide an additional defensive layer be airborne threats.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2019, 22:40
by marauder2048
popcorn wrote:Not quité CIWS but the Navy should soon be fielding cost-effective guided HVP rounds fired from 5-inch deck cannon to provide an additional defensive layer be airborne threats.


HVP (now GLGP) definitely seems to have gone beyond "classic" CIWS.

If you look at the recent gun-launched guided projectile RFI they are looking at a combination of midcourse guidance
from SPY, 2-way datalink and an active seeker to permit OTH terminal operation.
To the point above regarding warhead triggering, an active seeker should help with fuze timing.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9c3cc7ad29b7167ab4014672131ef146&tab=core&_cview=1

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2019, 09:18
by lamashtu
As an aside there is some video that suggests that the "more dakka" solution to small UAVs is not quite the cure-all it is often purported to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv57h6f ... .be&t=1511

Perhaps Army brass wasn't so stupid as to not pursue any more SPAAG programs after the abortive M247 York.

Re: How effective are CIWS?

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2019, 15:26
by botsing
lamashtu wrote:As an aside there is some video that suggests that the "more dakka" solution to small UAVs is not quite the cure-all it is often purported to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv57h6f ... .be&t=1511

Perhaps Army brass wasn't so stupid as to not pursue any more SPAAG programs after the abortive M247 York.

Changes in adaptive dispersion rates and timed offset charges might negate your ideas.

I would not take a six year old video as gospel, this ten year old video keeps being fun in that regards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wewaCdSW4yc