Phalanx

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Lord Jim »

I would like to see two of the Phalanx on heh Carriers replaced by bays of twenty four Sea Ceptor, covering Bow/Starboard and Stern/Port respectively, though both could cover 360 degrees is needed.. These would provide a far better point defence capability but we would retain the two remaining "Hail Mary" Phalanx as well. Considering the Italians have installed Aster in Sylver VLS in the Flight Deck of the Cavour or Trieste, cannot remember which vessel the photos were of, I cannot see any issues on the Queen Elizabeth Classes flight deck, especially as Sea Ceptor is cold launchers. I would also like to see mounting points for Phalanx on the B2 Rivers. Being self contained this should be a relatively easy task once the location is chosen. This would give the vessels a limited C-RAM capability as well as greater anti surface as well..
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyoDahedd

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Rentaghost wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 10:22
Cooper wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 09:54
Rentaghost wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 09:52 with Phalanx as the hail Mary last ditch option.
They've never really been anything other than that
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...
Yeah that was what I was getting at when created post about SeaRAM, with supersonic and hypesonic missiles.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Timmymagic »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 14:34 Yeah that was what I was getting at when created post about SeaRAM, with supersonic and hypesonic missiles.
99% of the anti-ship missiles out there are subsonic. So Phalanx still has a role to play, its ability against fast attack craft and UAV's/Loitering Munitions is also useful.
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 12:15 I would like to see two of the Phalanx on heh Carriers replaced by bays of twenty four Sea Ceptor, covering Bow/Starboard and Stern/Port respectively, though both could cover 360 degrees is needed..
The best locations for a Sea Ceptor install would be starboard stern quarter and port forward, as per below. Less risk to personnel, flight ops or parked aircraft, particularly if the launchers were angled outwards a few degrees. There's plenty of space in both locations for a 3 cell ExCLS VL set up with 12 rounds in each. No need to remove the Phalanx from there either, the ExLS could be mounted to the hull, perhaps with a small extension to push the Phalanx further out.

Image

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 12:15 Considering the Italians have installed Aster in Sylver VLS in the Flight Deck of the Cavour or Trieste,
Trieste is Fitted For But Not With. Cavour is 2 sets of 8 x Sylver A43's in 2 locations starboard forward (in front of the island) and at the Stern port quarter. Aster 15 only, but it's worth noting that A43 Sylver will not fit CAMM-ER (that requires Sylver A50).

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by jimthelad »

The French aircrews are scared shitless of Aster on CdG. In fact they refused to have the system active during the Syria crisis.
These users liked the author jimthelad for the post:
Dahedd

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Timmymagic »

jimthelad wrote: 21 Jan 2022, 21:31 The French aircrews are scared shitless of Aster on CdG. In fact they refused to have the system active during the Syria crisis.
FOD must be a massive issue as well. There's a good reason why the US CVN's still use the old Mk.29 trainable box launcher for ESSM rather than VL, even if it can't handle the ESSM Blk.II with active RF homing.

Saying that the Sea Ceptor's soft launch means that FOD hazards are dramatically reduced, particularly if they can attach a capture system (a length of wire would do...) to the quartered frangible canister cover. Have it angled out a few degrees like the Frigate installation and any fears of a live missile dropping on the deck disappear.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
jimthelad

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Lord Jim »

Any further info or source material on the issues French air crew had on the CdG?

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1431
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by NickC »

Preciously mentioned in 'Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion' but for the record thought should post on this more appropriate thread the surprisingly unreliability of Phalanx which came to light testing USS Ford's 3 Phalanx's during its 2021 sea trials, DoD DOT&E said the vessel’s Gatling gun-like system “experienced numerous reliability failures that in several cases prevented the system from executing its mission”

From <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... end-itself>

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Lord Jim »

Luckily the Ford has a layered protection system with ESSM and RAM before Phalanx comes into play. Something the Royal Navy has chosen to totally ignore. Mind you post WW" the most our Carriers were protected by was a few 40mm and Sea Cat launchers until the Invincibles brought Sea Dart later complimented by Phalanx post the Falklands. How mush this was due to saving money and how much to a well thought out doctrine who knows.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Scimitar54 »

So 16 x 4.5” AA guns and 52 x 40mm Bofors guns (60 x 40mm Bofors guns and later on 6 x Quadruple SeaCat Launchers and 8 x 4.5” AA guns on HMS Eagle R05) was just “a few 40mm and SeaCat Launchers” then was it ? CVA01 was intended to have been armed with both SeaDart and SeaCat.
You posts can make very good points, but please do not sink to the level of gross inaccuracy. :lol:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Phalanx

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote: 29 Jan 2022, 11:50 Preciously mentioned in 'Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion' but for the record thought should post on this more appropriate thread the surprisingly unreliability of Phalanx which came to light testing USS Ford's 3 Phalanx's during its 2021 sea trials, DoD DOT&E said the vessel’s Gatling gun-like system “experienced numerous reliability failures that in several cases prevented the system from executing its mission”

From <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... end-itself>
Not sure it this means, Ford's CIWS system was NOT well maintained (not enough crew there, not well trained crew there), or the system itself is unreliable. As the Phalanx system is very famous for requiring intensive continuous maintenance, with a skill needing intensive training course, and hence a number of skilled crew to serve it, I guess it is the former. (Although just a guess).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Lord Jim »

I was not being grossly inaccurate. By the time the Royal Navy's carrier were modernised to operate jets with their angled flight decks etc they had nearly all of their armament removed. Ark Royal never got her Sea Cats fitted and Victorious and the Hermes class only had a few 40mm which were totally inadequate for dealing with almost any threat. CVA-01 was to have Sea Dart, but that is the wrong type of weapon for a Carrier as the USN found when they installed Terrier on JFK, soon replaced by BPDMS and then Sea Sparrow in that role. Sea Cat even in its most advanced format was still a poor but cheap weapon and was superior to the 40mm but not by much. I may not have got the arrangements on all the RNs Carriers correct post WW2 but none were even fitted with an effective layered AAW screen, relying almost totally on their escorts, initally the Counties with their Sea Slug and Sea Cat, followed by HMS Bristol and then her Aldi siblings in the form of the T-42. The latter were reasonable ships but would not have stood a chance against a Soviet swarm attack. Hence the T-45. But my argument stands if the navy with the most experience of operating large carriers since WW2 believe they need a strong organic AAW screen, what does the Royal Navy know that makes them think they can ignore them.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
KiwiMuzzwargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 30 Jan 2022, 21:33 I was not being grossly inaccurate. By the time the Royal Navy's carrier were modernised to operate jets with their angled flight decks etc they had nearly all of their armament removed. Ark Royal never got her Sea Cats fitted and Victorious and the Hermes class only had a few 40mm which were totally inadequate for dealing with almost any threat. CVA-01 was to have Sea Dart, but that is the wrong type of weapon for a Carrier as the USN found when they installed Terrier on JFK, soon replaced by BPDMS and then Sea Sparrow in that role. Sea Cat even in its most advanced format was still a poor but cheap weapon and was superior to the 40mm but not by much. I may not have got the arrangements on all the RNs Carriers correct post WW2 but none were even fitted with an effective layered AAW screen, relying almost totally on their escorts, initally the Counties with their Sea Slug and Sea Cat, followed by HMS Bristol and then her Aldi siblings in the form of the T-42. The latter were reasonable ships but would not have stood a chance against a Soviet swarm attack. Hence the T-45. But my argument stands if the navy with the most experience of operating large carriers since WW2 believe they need a strong organic AAW screen, what does the Royal Navy know that makes them think they can ignore them.
Especially when you think that RN CSG have at most TWO escorts dedicated to AAW (assuming the T45's propulsion systems are currently working), whereas the USN CSG typically have FIVE dedicated AAW escorts with 1*Ticonderoga and 4*Arleigh Burkes (with Ticonderoga's being gradually replaced by AB Flight III's).

Given that BAE have introduced bolt-on VLS launchers (i.e. not deck penetrating), which could therefore be attached to the roof of the superstructure, (probably pointing to port so that shooting AAW missiles away from flight operations).

Therefore the Queen Elizabeth class should max out to 4*Phoenix CIWS and add some bolt-on VLS launchers for CAMM. At least that would give them short range and point-blank AAW defence, and then being dependant on T45's for just medium range and long range AAW.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Scimitar54 »

Lord Jim Wrote
the Hermes class only had a few 40mm which were totally inadequate for dealing with almost any threat.
.

I am afraid you are wrong yet again! HMS Hermes R12 was Fitted with 2 x Quadruple SEA CAT Launchers. That does mean “Fitted with” and not “FFBNW”. If you look at photographs of her from 1973 onwards, you will see the launchers on each beam towards the Stern.

Light Fleet Carriers were just that. Due to their small size, operation of an adequate number of the larger more modern aircraft was the first priority.

With regard to the SEA DART & SEA CAT proposed for CVA01; In your earlier (recent) post you claimed it as a virtue that the Invincible class were armed with it. You cannot argue both ways on this (unless you like to argue with yourself). Again due to their small size, in order to operate the maximum number.of aircraft on the Invincible class, accordingly SEA DART was removed.

Against a background of not fitting modern systems to vessels that were coming towards the end of their service lives and when set against the reduction and elimination of Aircraft Carriers in RN service, fitting of systems arising from new developments in missile technology would not have been sensible.

The only RN Carriers that were in any way comparable to QEC Carriers, were HMS Ark Royal (R09) and HMS Eagle (R05) and they were the examples that I referred to in my post.

I would like to see a sensible CAMM (SEA CEPTOR) armament on the QEC Carriers. I know where I would locate them and have said so on this forum before. I will not repeat it.

With regard to the Armament (or lack of it) on previous RN Carriers, please stop flailing about, adding inaccuracy on top of inaccuracy. You are just drifting into deeper and deeper water. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Phalanx

Post by Tempest414 »

it is worth saying that Invincible had Sea dart in the Falklands

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Scimitar54 »

The truth is ALWAYS “Worth Telling” (Saying). :mrgreen:

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Defiance »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Jan 2022, 12:13 it is worth saying that Invincible had Sea dart in the Falklands
and they also took it away to increase deck space
These users liked the author Defiance for the post:
Scimitar54

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Phalanx

Post by Tempest414 »

Defiance wrote: 31 Jan 2022, 15:16
Tempest414 wrote: 31 Jan 2022, 12:13 it is worth saying that Invincible had Sea dart in the Falklands
and they also took it away to increase deck space
well deck space was always limited

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Lord Jim »

Whether a Carrier had two quadruple Sea Cat launchers as per Hermes or even six as per Eagle, given the effectiveness of these weapons, the Royal Navy has repeatedly not given its carriers sufficient organic protection against air threats. Whereas other Navies have realised the increasing threat from Cruise and AShMs, and increased the defensive capabilities of their Carriers the Royal Navy has stuck to its guns and decided not to. Even though the escort group that accompanies each USN Carrier is significantly better at AAW and definitely more capacity if you compare the number of VLS cells when comparing the USN and RN.

We have put all our eggs in one baskets, Phalanx a system whose effectiveness is being reduced by the increasing performance of modern AShMs. TO make matters worse, bit Russia and China have learnt the lessons from the Cold War and know you need to saturate the defences of a Carrier Strike Group, attacking from multiple directions. The small number of F-35s that will be available to maintain and reinforce a CAP over the CSG does little to help things.

So my point still stands, our two carriers need to be given increased organic layered point defence, regardless of whether I was 100% accurate on the armament of the RN's post WW2 Carriers.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Scimitar54 »

You will notice that I referred to the need for the QEC to be fitted with CAMM in my previous post and not for the first time either.

To me, the best part of fitting CAMM to the QEC, is that with the carriers magazine capacity and with some ingenuity regarding Silo location and design, they could very well be made to be re-loadable at sea.

Multiple Silo Locations may seem to some to be appropriate, but I am on record as saying that there should be only One location (Stern Starboard Quarter), so that the locations of the 3 x Phalanx and their firing arcs would remain to all intents unchanged.

You can argue as to whether Phalanx is still effective if you like, but the RN is not alone in thinking that it is. The USN obviously still do as well.

Perhaps you are suggesting a return to Goalkeeper ? If so, then it really should be on another thread.

You may also feel that T45s ought to carry a heavier weapons load ? I agree and this has been planned for, even though it seems likely to take longer than it should.

We can’t wave a magic wand and be where we want to be “just like that”. We are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. The first priority of a layered AAW system has to be SUFFICIENT DEFENSIVE and OFFENSIVE AIRCRAFT, otherwise the carrier is just another ship.

DYNR that for Ten years we did not even have a Strike Carrier. Now we have two and I would not be at all surprised for CAMM to be fitted to the QEC at their first Refit (or even in a more routine capability insertion), subject of course to sufficient funding being available and continued Carrier Readiness. :mrgreen:

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: Phalanx

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Scimitar54 wrote: 31 Jan 2022, 22:40
DYNR that for Ten years we did not even have a Strike Carrier. Now we have two and I would not be at all surprised for CAMM to be fitted to the QEC at their first Refit (or even in a more routine capability insertion), subject of course to sufficient funding being available and continued Carrier Readiness. :mrgreen:
With no disrespect to the Invincibles, the Royal Navy has not had a Strike Carrier (expedient MoD terminology notwithstanding), since 1978.
These users liked the author KiwiMuzz for the post:
Scimitar54

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Lord Jim »

The RN and MoD as a whole are very good at labelling things with a fair amount of spin included.

Regarding Phalanx and the defensive capabilities of the Carriers, the level of both offensive and defensive capacity of our Warships seems to be far more targeted at peacetime operations, or at the most low level operations. What could be done if the balloon went up in a major Peer level conflict to improve this situation would appear to be limited to actually giving each vessel its intended loadout. The Navy like the Army is taking a decade long warfighting gap, gambling it will not be needed to actually do the job it has been built and trained for. Relying just on Phalanx when the inclusion of Sea Ceptor would not have been too difficult during their construction simply confirms my thinking on the subject, though some will not agree, which is to be expected.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
KiwiMuzz

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Phalanx

Post by Scimitar54 »

Starved of “three pennies” of tar saved by the treasury, that would have made them the fine ships that they should have been. This is a problem right across defence caused by inept political decisions! :mrgreen:

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: Phalanx

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Lord Jim wrote: 01 Feb 2022, 00:48 The RN and MoD as a whole are very good at labelling things with a fair amount of spin included.
Remember the Naval Strike Wing? One squadron of nine Harriers, plus one squadron of zero, in "suspended animation". :roll:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Phalanx

Post by Tempest414 »

KiwiMuzz wrote: 31 Jan 2022, 23:18
Scimitar54 wrote: 31 Jan 2022, 22:40
DYNR that for Ten years we did not even have a Strike Carrier. Now we have two and I would not be at all surprised for CAMM to be fitted to the QEC at their first Refit (or even in a more routine capability insertion), subject of course to sufficient funding being available and continued Carrier Readiness. :mrgreen:
With no disrespect to the Invincibles, the Royal Navy has not had a Strike Carrier (expedient MoD terminology notwithstanding), since 1978.
I would push that forward to 1983 as Hermes could carry 24 Harriers and 10 helicopters ( Ark Royal carried 26 jets and plus 10 others in 78 )

Post Reply