Phalanx
Re: Phalanx
At a wild guess:
Corrosion resistant paint for steel is usually loaded with zinc. Radomes are usually glass fibre so don’t need corrosion protection, but metal loaded paint would interfere with the radar. If it were grey and your usual grey paint is zinc loaded, but you had a special grey for the radome then there would be a real danger that you’d end up with the wrong grey on the radome and you might not find out until it didn’t work.
So the grey radomes might indicate that the metal is coated and therefore the paint doesn’t need zinc in it so you can use it all over, or the navy feels that today’s ratings can be trusted to paint the right bit with the right paint, or the radome manufacturer is able to include grey pigment in the polymer matrix of the radome so it is still left unpainted but you can’t tell at a distance.
Corrosion resistant paint for steel is usually loaded with zinc. Radomes are usually glass fibre so don’t need corrosion protection, but metal loaded paint would interfere with the radar. If it were grey and your usual grey paint is zinc loaded, but you had a special grey for the radome then there would be a real danger that you’d end up with the wrong grey on the radome and you might not find out until it didn’t work.
So the grey radomes might indicate that the metal is coated and therefore the paint doesn’t need zinc in it so you can use it all over, or the navy feels that today’s ratings can be trusted to paint the right bit with the right paint, or the radome manufacturer is able to include grey pigment in the polymer matrix of the radome so it is still left unpainted but you can’t tell at a distance.
Re: Phalanx
One of the reasons early Radomes were white was to keep the temperature within cool. More modern electronics does not generate so much heat and radomes can come in a variety of colours.
Metal based paint acts as an attenuator to high frequency radio waves, it is less of a problem at lower frequencies. Also finding a paint that will adhere to the surface without peeling can be a problem.
Metal based paint acts as an attenuator to high frequency radio waves, it is less of a problem at lower frequencies. Also finding a paint that will adhere to the surface without peeling can be a problem.
Re: Phalanx
In the early 2000s the USN became more concerned with visual "sore spots" that might catch the eye of an optical sensor at long range or in otherwise low visibility. Additionally, there were concerns about how they effect a ship's IR signature and impacting other systems due to being more reflective than the rest of the ship. Gray radomes for the Phalanx were developed by Raytheon in response, and are becoming more common.KyleG wrote:Can't find any info on this online so thought I may as well ask here, does anyone know if there's any reason why the latest Phalanx models seem to often come in all over grey rather than grey with a white radome? Might not be any real reason at all, but I'm just a bit curious
- hovematlot
- Member
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Phalanx
In March we will know.
I guess the rotation through factory, for 1B upgrades, has been completed, so direct transfers are a likelihood.
I guess the rotation through factory, for 1B upgrades, has been completed, so direct transfers are a likelihood.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Phalanx
If anything that video shoes the need for Sea spear. A couple of Remote/Autonomous small boats have a chance of getting close enough to cause a problem. That remotely operated boat was still going after several attempts to stop it.
Re: Phalanx
Only pic of a Wave with Phalanx fitted that I can recall, recently posted on @NavyLookout.
Both offset to starboard. I'm sure there's nothing to worry about.
Re: Phalanx
Phalanx going in for upgrade soon by the look of it
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/un ... grade-kits
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/un ... grade-kits
Re: Phalanx
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... se-system/R686 wrote:Phalanx going in for upgrade soon by the look of it
So does this mean we have fifty systems now?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Phalanx
Me too, until I read about 1B having a baseline 1 and baseline 2
- anyone know the difference?
- anyone know the difference?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Phalanx
Seems to read that by ow all of ours are 1B baseline 2
"have been upgraded to 1B Baseline 2 standard with kits supplied by Raytheon"
so my question about the difference is (sort of) irrelevant
- what has been gained, and how much that cuts into the need for/ relevance of the 30 mm's (for anti-surface) that we currently have, in addition, might still be a discussions point?
"have been upgraded to 1B Baseline 2 standard with kits supplied by Raytheon"
so my question about the difference is (sort of) irrelevant
- what has been gained, and how much that cuts into the need for/ relevance of the 30 mm's (for anti-surface) that we currently have, in addition, might still be a discussions point?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
CIWS - Phalanx versus SeaRAM
CIWS Phalanx is the current Close in Weapon System used by both USN and RN, and many other of the allied navies. It as introduced in 1980 so has been around for over 4 decades, and includes a radar-guided 20 mm (0.8 in) Vulcan cannon mounted on a swiveling base, as an automated point defence weapon system.
I have noted that the USN has started adding SeaRAM instead of Phalanx, either as well as e.g. on aircraft carriers, or instead of e.g. on San Antonio class LPD or Independance class LCS (which are not currently fitted with VLS launchers). SeaRAM replaced the 20mm cannon with an 11 cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher, so that it still operates autonomously but doubling the maximum range from 5km for Phalanx to 10km for SeaRAM, but a much longer effective range.
I realise that there is some overlap between SeaRAM and the likes of Martlett and CAMM missile systems. But as Anti-Ship-Missiles (both air-launched and sea-launched) are coming with increasingly higher speeds, from subsonic to supersonic to hypersonic. If the Phalanx has a maximum effective range of between 1.5-2.0 km, the faster the missile was travelling, the more likely shrapnel would still hit and damage the ship.
Should the RN follow the USN and start to introduce SeaRAM as a complement or even a replacement for Phalanx? It just gives more layers of protection with both Russia and China seeming to favour massed missile attacks.
I have noted that the USN has started adding SeaRAM instead of Phalanx, either as well as e.g. on aircraft carriers, or instead of e.g. on San Antonio class LPD or Independance class LCS (which are not currently fitted with VLS launchers). SeaRAM replaced the 20mm cannon with an 11 cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher, so that it still operates autonomously but doubling the maximum range from 5km for Phalanx to 10km for SeaRAM, but a much longer effective range.
I realise that there is some overlap between SeaRAM and the likes of Martlett and CAMM missile systems. But as Anti-Ship-Missiles (both air-launched and sea-launched) are coming with increasingly higher speeds, from subsonic to supersonic to hypersonic. If the Phalanx has a maximum effective range of between 1.5-2.0 km, the faster the missile was travelling, the more likely shrapnel would still hit and damage the ship.
Should the RN follow the USN and start to introduce SeaRAM as a complement or even a replacement for Phalanx? It just gives more layers of protection with both Russia and China seeming to favour massed missile attacks.
Re: CIWS - Phalanx versus SeaRAM
I think I rather see the new 40mm Bofors, as soon to be used on the T31 & as many additional Seaceptor silos as possible wheeled out across the fleet.
40mm on everything from the Rivers up, RN & RFA, same with VLS/Mushroom farms for Ceptor.
40mm on everything from the Rivers up, RN & RFA, same with VLS/Mushroom farms for Ceptor.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: CIWS - Phalanx versus SeaRAM
Merging this topic with the existing Phalanx topic.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 19:17 CIWS Phalanx is the current Close in Weapon System used by both USN and RN, and many other of the allied navies. It as introduced in 1980 so has been around for over 4 decades, and includes a radar-guided 20 mm (0.8 in) Vulcan cannon mounted on a swiveling base, as an automated point defence weapon system.
I have noted that the USN has started adding SeaRAM instead of Phalanx, either as well as e.g. on aircraft carriers, or instead of e.g. on San Antonio class LPD or Independance class LCS (which are not currently fitted with VLS launchers). SeaRAM replaced the 20mm cannon with an 11 cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher, so that it still operates autonomously but doubling the maximum range from 5km for Phalanx to 10km for SeaRAM, but a much longer effective range.
I realise that there is some overlap between SeaRAM and the likes of Martlett and CAMM missile systems. But as Anti-Ship-Missiles (both air-launched and sea-launched) are coming with increasingly higher speeds, from subsonic to supersonic to hypersonic. If the Phalanx has a maximum effective range of between 1.5-2.0 km, the faster the missile was travelling, the more likely shrapnel would still hit and damage the ship.
Should the RN follow the USN and start to introduce SeaRAM as a complement or even a replacement for Phalanx? It just gives more layers of protection with both Russia and China seeming to favour massed missile attacks.
- These users liked the author The Armchair Soldier for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
-
- Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Re: CIWS - Phalanx versus SeaRAM
As I understand it, CAMM effectively straddles that capability area between SeaRam and the Sparrow ESSM. It has the effective minimum range under 1km that let's it be used as a point defence weapon but long enough effective range to be used in a small area defence role.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 19:17 CIWS Phalanx is the current Close in Weapon System used by both USN and RN, and many other of the allied navies. It as introduced in 1980 so has been around for over 4 decades, and includes a radar-guided 20 mm (0.8 in) Vulcan cannon mounted on a swiveling base, as an automated point defence weapon system.
I have noted that the USN has started adding SeaRAM instead of Phalanx, either as well as e.g. on aircraft carriers, or instead of e.g. on San Antonio class LPD or Independance class LCS (which are not currently fitted with VLS launchers). SeaRAM replaced the 20mm cannon with an 11 cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher, so that it still operates autonomously but doubling the maximum range from 5km for Phalanx to 10km for SeaRAM, but a much longer effective range.
I realise that there is some overlap between SeaRAM and the likes of Martlett and CAMM missile systems. But as Anti-Ship-Missiles (both air-launched and sea-launched) are coming with increasingly higher speeds, from subsonic to supersonic to hypersonic. If the Phalanx has a maximum effective range of between 1.5-2.0 km, the faster the missile was travelling, the more likely shrapnel would still hit and damage the ship.
Should the RN follow the USN and start to introduce SeaRAM as a complement or even a replacement for Phalanx? It just gives more layers of protection with both Russia and China seeming to favour massed missile attacks.
The fact that the T45s are being retrofitted with CAMM suggests the RN sees it as its primary point defence system, with Phalanx as the hail Mary last ditch option.
I suppose we could replace it with another missile system but would likely always end up duplicating part of CAMM's role.
From an amateur's point of view there may be some utility in a second point defence system with a different sensor? In a heavy EW degraded environment, maybe something that doesn't queue on active radar homing would be useful, if your opponent had an EW suite on board the attacking missile that helped it degrade lock on?
Something on a trainable launcher like Starstreak might be notionally useful. Fairly passive sensing technique that is hard to jam, and launches extremely fast (+mach 4?) Tungsten projectiles that would likely provide decent stopping power against incoming supersonic heavy AShMs?
- These users liked the author Rentaghost for the post (total 2):
- donald_of_tokyo • wargame_insomniac
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Phalanx
You mean like this...from the 80's...Rentaghost wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 09:52 Something on a trainable launcher like Starstreak might be notionally useful.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: CIWS - Phalanx versus SeaRAM
We see this with type 31 v Constellation class the US have gone with a 57mm plus a 22 round RAM launcher were the RN has gone for 57mm plus two 40mm.
57mm has 120 ready rounds and 40mm Mk-4 has 100 ready rounds so with this being said the Constellation class has 142 ready rounds were the type 31 has 320 ready rounds
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- Dahedd
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5612
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: CIWS - Phalanx versus SeaRAM
I would like to see type 45 given 4 x 40mm in place of the 30mm and phalanxRentaghost wrote: ↑21 Jan 2022, 09:52As I understand it, CAMM effectively straddles that capability area between SeaRam and the Sparrow ESSM. It has the effective minimum range under 1km that let's it be used as a point defence weapon but long enough effective range to be used in a small area defence role.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑20 Jan 2022, 19:17 CIWS Phalanx is the current Close in Weapon System used by both USN and RN, and many other of the allied navies. It as introduced in 1980 so has been around for over 4 decades, and includes a radar-guided 20 mm (0.8 in) Vulcan cannon mounted on a swiveling base, as an automated point defence weapon system.
I have noted that the USN has started adding SeaRAM instead of Phalanx, either as well as e.g. on aircraft carriers, or instead of e.g. on San Antonio class LPD or Independance class LCS (which are not currently fitted with VLS launchers). SeaRAM replaced the 20mm cannon with an 11 cell RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launcher, so that it still operates autonomously but doubling the maximum range from 5km for Phalanx to 10km for SeaRAM, but a much longer effective range.
I realise that there is some overlap between SeaRAM and the likes of Martlett and CAMM missile systems. But as Anti-Ship-Missiles (both air-launched and sea-launched) are coming with increasingly higher speeds, from subsonic to supersonic to hypersonic. If the Phalanx has a maximum effective range of between 1.5-2.0 km, the faster the missile was travelling, the more likely shrapnel would still hit and damage the ship.
Should the RN follow the USN and start to introduce SeaRAM as a complement or even a replacement for Phalanx? It just gives more layers of protection with both Russia and China seeming to favour massed missile attacks.
The fact that the T45s are being retrofitted with CAMM suggests the RN sees it as its primary point defence system, with Phalanx as the hail Mary last ditch option.
I suppose we could replace it with another missile system but would likely always end up duplicating part of CAMM's role.
From an amateur's point of view there may be some utility in a second point defence system with a different sensor? In a heavy EW degraded environment, maybe something that doesn't queue on active radar homing would be useful, if your opponent had an EW suite on board the attacking missile that helped it degrade lock on?
Something on a trainable launcher like Starstreak might be notionally useful. Fairly passive sensing technique that is hard to jam, and launches extremely fast (+mach 4?) Tungsten projectiles that would likely provide decent stopping power against incoming supersonic heavy AShMs?
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- Dahedd
-
- Member
- Posts: 59
- Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Re: Phalanx
True, but I get the impression that against modern heavy, fast missiles there is far less confidence in the stopping power of Phalanx and than against previous generations and today it may be a literal hail Mary I.e. may involve significant prayer power as much as bullets to stop the missile...