UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Phalanx

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Phalanx

Postby marktigger » 24 May 2015, 19:38



There has been a few debates on one of the threads about phalanx so lets give it its own thread

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: Phalanx

Postby Tiny Toy » 24 May 2015, 21:07

Got to love the daleks. I think the Marine Nationale went down the wrong path with Crotale / SADRAL.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 May 2015, 23:21

At first the MN had some MANPADS put on multiple mounts, but these have now been retired (or are in the process). The SADRAL (6 missiles, with a quick reload) was further developed by the Finnish navy into a mount where cannons and the six launchers are interchangeable.-
- even for a littoral navy the performance was judged to be lacking, and decoy launchers have been substituted for these in subsequent refits

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby marktigger » 25 May 2015, 00:34

the argument for phalanx goes much about its plug in and play capability and lack of deck penetration. The Royal Navy is now concentrating on Phalanx and has got rid of GoalKeeper systems which is a shame.

Wern Pennant
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 04 Jan 2016, 14:03

Re: Phalanx

Postby Wern Pennant » 04 Jan 2016, 14:14

marktigger wrote:the argument for phalanx goes much about its plug in and play capability and lack of deck penetration. The Royal Navy is now concentrating on Phalanx and has got rid of GoalKeeper systems which is a shame.

marktigger wrote:the argument for phalanx goes much about its plug in and play capability and lack of deck penetration. The Royal Navy is now concentrating on Phalanx and has got rid of GoalKeeper systems which is a shame.


Why did they get rid of Goalkeeper? As I understood it, Goalkeeper outperformed Phalanx on several points.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby marktigger » 04 Jan 2016, 15:11

problem with Goal Keeper is its Deck penetration it takes up more space than Phalanx.
I agree I feel Goalkeeper is the better system.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Jan 2016, 15:21

As per above, just power and water needs to be supplied
- comes at $10m per piece, exactly for the reason of being self-sufficient

However, there are many good points for Goalkeeper (starts shooting much further out being one of them).
- is is not just the deck penetration, but
1. unique logistics trail for very few units
2. the need to integrate with any (read: diverse) BMSs on the ships where they would be used

In my books they would still have a place on the amphibs that will never be alone, and which would thereby have a much better reach (space they have in abundance) and the cueing of the weapon to the general threat sector can be done by the escorts, as a read out from their sensors

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3061
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Phalanx

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Jan 2016, 14:27

1: How many man-powers are needed for 1 (or 2) Phalanx mount to a ship?

Totally just assumption, but I assume:
- Maybe 1 (or 2) consoles in CIC. --> 1 (or 2) watch keeper --> 3 (or 6) crews additional.
- at least 2 (or 3) engineers
= In total, 5 (or 9) I suppose.

If this estimate is valid, if you give up CIWSs (such as T23 did), you can save 5-9 crews.
In the case of T26, this amounts to 7.6% of total 118 crews.


2: Not enough number of Phalanxs in RN

From Gabriele's blog, he says RN has 36 units of Phalanx at 2014.
ref: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... art-2.html
and this number is surely not enough.

----
12 for 6 T45s.
6 for 2 CVs.
16 for 8 T26ASWs.
10 for "future lighter frigate".
----
total 44.

In addition you need:
----
4 for 2 LPDs (if Goalkeeper OSD is coming soon)
4~8 for Supply ships.
----
total 8-12
===
Grand total 52-56...

You need to purchase ~20 units in addition. Unit cost is $8M for USN, it may be 6-7M GBP for RN. Then you need 130M GBP to purchase these additional Phalanxes.

# These issues (crews and initial cost) is why I propose to omit = make it "fitted for but not with" a CIWS on "future light frigate". It will save 45 crews and 65M GBP initial cost (+ similar amount of maintenance costs spread over 20-30 years). But this is off-thread, sorry.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Phalanx

Postby shark bait » 05 Jan 2016, 15:29

Does Phalanx need an operator sat there? I was under the impression it operated automatically as a self contained unit, that being why it is a more attractive system.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Phalanx

Postby Engaging Strategy » 05 Jan 2016, 17:54

shark bait wrote:Does Phalanx need an operator sat there? I was under the impression it operated automatically as a self contained unit, that being why it is a more attractive system.


While Phalanx has an autonomous mode it's not always suitable. For engaging fast attack craft it's operated manually from a console in the ops room. If you just left the system on automatic you'd end up with it going off accidentally, like it did in the Gulf war.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Jan 2016, 18:06

Engaging Strategy wrote: For engaging fast attack craft it's operated manually


The modding of RN Phalanx guns made them effective in that use, too (1B I think is the standard).

The original concept where not only the target, but also the short Phalanx bursts are tracked by its own radar, thereby correcting for catching up with the target (quite different from the wall of lead thinking that is often quoted) does not really apply to FACs that are manouvering wildly and randomly (so much for maths and fully automated operation).

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Phalanx

Postby arfah » 29 Jan 2016, 10:58

............
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Phalanx

Postby shark bait » 29 Jan 2016, 11:32

Nice. Are those tracer rounds? so in reality is there 10 times more shots than we can see?

Can anyone explain Phalanx's tactics? one of them at lease seems to be doing some wacky shit.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1475
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Phalanx

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 29 Jan 2016, 11:33

Do we have any of those C-RAMs left?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Phalanx

Postby shark bait » 29 Jan 2016, 11:41

all gone to the navy, don't think the army has any defence of this kind left.

I don't think they would be in a hurry to get the C-RAM back, I don't believe they where well liked.
@LandSharkUK

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 462
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Phalanx

Postby Dahedd » 29 Jan 2016, 11:47

Maybe a daft question. But instead of using the Phalanx destined for the RN ships why not use the retired Goalkeepers in the role instead? Give them fully to the Royal Artillery.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Phalanx

Postby arfah » 29 Jan 2016, 12:09

............
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Phalanx

Postby arfah » 29 Jan 2016, 12:25

............
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 462
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Phalanx

Postby Dahedd » 29 Jan 2016, 13:06

I was meaning now/in the future. Rather than scraping them reuse them. Surely the system would fit on the back of a flat bed.

That said I'd like to see the army invest in a system like the Thales RAPIDfire 40mil cta system. Though I'm not sure how good it would be vs the targets in that last video.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Phalanx

Postby arfah » 29 Jan 2016, 13:28

............
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Jan 2016, 13:33

shark bait wrote:I don't think they would be in a hurry to get the C-RAM back, I don't believe they where well liked


I don't quite understand, but the Germans (2 systems of multiple guns) acquired theirs for airbase defence... a much more advanced system, too.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Phalanx

Postby shark bait » 29 Jan 2016, 13:37

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I don't quite understand, but the Germans (2 systems of multiple guns) acquired theirs for airbase defence... a much more advanced system, too.


Yes theirs is more advanced. Its nothing official, but I have herd reports that our naval guns didn't work very well on land, not hitting many things even when firing 4,000 rounds per minute.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Jan 2016, 13:39

arfah wrote:The last tactical AD gun system in use was Sky Guard https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oerlikon_GDF

Captured from Argentine forces and deployed by the RAuxAF Regiment for airfield defence.


I read somewhere that those that could be refurbed were actually used to develop suitable low-level techniques for attacking gun defended targets (Boscombe Downs? Can't quite remember where it was done).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Jan 2016, 13:41

shark bait wrote: have herd reports that our naval guns didn't work very well on land, not hitting many things even when firing 4,000 rounds per minute.


That would not be a surprise as when the launch is done from behind nearby hills, the Phalanx principle of radar tracking the incoming and your own short bursts. to make the two coincide after corrections would not have enough time to achieve that?

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2365
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Phalanx

Postby arfah » 29 Jan 2016, 14:04

............
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: albedo, Digger22, JHC and 15 guests