Phalanx
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Phalanx
The system was the marvel of its day; went to see the previous, radar-guided generation in 1968
- the safety zone roped off was quite big as no one expected such fast movements from a gun
- the safety zone roped off was quite big as no one expected such fast movements from a gun
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)
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: Phalanx
Possibly apocryphal but the Taliban thought we had a magic shield which bounced their mortar bombs straight back at them. CIWS took out their round, counter battery plotted their locations and our own mortars would engage, though they thought it was their original bombs coming back!shark bait wrote: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.
They worked fine, even taking out 60mm mortar.
On the question of Goalkeeper what do we think the smallest vessel they could be fitted to would be? I'm thinking a vessel with Goalkeeper, decoys and nothing else. Possibly even remote operated.
Re: Phalanx
An interesting thought - how about as a main gun for a variant of the T31? Goalkeeper and CAMM on the front and Captas-2/4 and a Merlin on the back - would that make a good escort? You lose NGFS, but get both AAW and ASW in a smaller packageSpinflight wrote:On the question of Goalkeeper what do we think the smallest vessel they could be fitted to would be? I'm thinking a vessel with Goalkeeper, decoys and nothing else. Possibly even remote operated.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: Phalanx
Goalkeepers are used as the main deck gun. No reason why a variant of the Type 31 couldn't use them. Especially if SJP's for but not withs or the mothership MHC requirement.
The specific problem I'm thinking of though is a 5" armed light frigate needing to provide some good old fashioned support for ground troops against competent A2AD, or used to degrade that A2AD network through offshore fires. Possibly self spotting via UAV or cued by other systems.
More specifically I'm thinking about smoke, radar can't see through it, neither can IR. Hence the threats are likely to be a mix of diesel subs, mines, FAC, antiship missiles and fast air. Possibly counter battery but it doesn't have a strong record historically.
Not much you can do about the first two in the shallows. It's a dangerous job and you have to take risks.
FACs and antiship missiles could both be countered by CIWS, trouble is there is limited ammo and it's a last ditch defence. Most modern ASMs can be pre programmed with waypoints, hence if some bugger is flinging five inch goodness off your coast you'd only really need to fly them down the coast, knowing roughly where said shells were coming from even without counter battery.
LGBs are the next threat, though I don't see any reason why CIWS couldn't take em out and I'm sceptical about their ability to target through smoke.
So yeah basically rather than mounting a single CIWS on the cheapo frigate have several spread out independently several km from the ship happily radiating and remote controlled by cable. Mexifloat would probably do it but not sure how big a purpose designed hull you'd need for it's 10 tonne weight and what stability requirements it has.
Cheapo frigate gains mortars loaded with WP and a smoke generator incase anything nasty comes over the horizon.
Just an idea. Basically remote CIWS pickets.
The specific problem I'm thinking of though is a 5" armed light frigate needing to provide some good old fashioned support for ground troops against competent A2AD, or used to degrade that A2AD network through offshore fires. Possibly self spotting via UAV or cued by other systems.
More specifically I'm thinking about smoke, radar can't see through it, neither can IR. Hence the threats are likely to be a mix of diesel subs, mines, FAC, antiship missiles and fast air. Possibly counter battery but it doesn't have a strong record historically.
Not much you can do about the first two in the shallows. It's a dangerous job and you have to take risks.
FACs and antiship missiles could both be countered by CIWS, trouble is there is limited ammo and it's a last ditch defence. Most modern ASMs can be pre programmed with waypoints, hence if some bugger is flinging five inch goodness off your coast you'd only really need to fly them down the coast, knowing roughly where said shells were coming from even without counter battery.
LGBs are the next threat, though I don't see any reason why CIWS couldn't take em out and I'm sceptical about their ability to target through smoke.
So yeah basically rather than mounting a single CIWS on the cheapo frigate have several spread out independently several km from the ship happily radiating and remote controlled by cable. Mexifloat would probably do it but not sure how big a purpose designed hull you'd need for it's 10 tonne weight and what stability requirements it has.
Cheapo frigate gains mortars loaded with WP and a smoke generator incase anything nasty comes over the horizon.
Just an idea. Basically remote CIWS pickets.
Re: Phalanx
OK - I see what you mean. I was thinking more in terms of fleet operations, whereas you are thinking more in terms of littoral ops (or maybe to be more accurate, amphibious operations support - apologies if I have misunderstood). The principal of a remote CIWS picket seems reasonable, but I can foresee difficulties with the platform. Unmanned, or manned but essentially stationary platforms, imply a mothership of some sort (either for command and control or mobility), which doesn't necessarily sit well with the potential limitations of a light frigate. Making use of our mothballed Goalkeeper systems (if we haven't flogged them off cheap to someone else) would seem to be a sensible ides, but I'm not sure what would be the appropriate platform.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Phalanx
difficulty with an unmanned outstation is keeping it online who sorts out stoppages and breakdowns, who cleans and maintains it? more importantly who reloads it?
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: Phalanx
Yes this is an issue.
Not necessarily a huge one as CIWS is designed to be pretty independent if needed.
You'd need to be able to rotate boats, and I do envisage a larger LPD type further offshore, one that would carry the small RPVs into theatre and service them etc.
Bear in mind that merely getting the shore defences to open fire is in itself a win, much easier to locate targets if you have some idea of their bearing.
Not necessarily a huge one as CIWS is designed to be pretty independent if needed.
You'd need to be able to rotate boats, and I do envisage a larger LPD type further offshore, one that would carry the small RPVs into theatre and service them etc.
Bear in mind that merely getting the shore defences to open fire is in itself a win, much easier to locate targets if you have some idea of their bearing.
-
- Member
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00
Re: Phalanx
With respect I think there are bigger problems than that.marktigger wrote:difficulty with an unmanned outstation is keeping it online who sorts out stoppages and breakdowns, who cleans and maintains it? more importantly who reloads it?
But I'd rewind to:
Since when?Spinflight wrote:More specifically I'm thinking about smoke, radar can't see through it,
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Phalanx
better still land away from defences and have a secure bridgehead to build upSpinflight wrote:Yes this is an issue.
Not necessarily a huge one as CIWS is designed to be pretty independent if needed.
You'd need to be able to rotate boats, and I do envisage a larger LPD type further offshore, one that would carry the small RPVs into theatre and service them etc.
Bear in mind that merely getting the shore defences to open fire is in itself a win, much easier to locate targets if you have some idea of their bearing.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Phalanx
Enigmatically wrote:With respect I think there are bigger problems than that.marktigger wrote:difficulty with an unmanned outstation is keeping it online who sorts out stoppages and breakdowns, who cleans and maintains it? more importantly who reloads it?
But I'd rewind to:Since when?Spinflight wrote:More specifically I'm thinking about smoke, radar can't see through it,
Radar is a 2 edged sword yes you pinpoint your enemy but your enemy pinpoint you by your emissions and unless you hard wire your data links from other sensors and C3 you run risk of jamming/spoofing or errors
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: Phalanx
Depends upon what radar bands you want to defeat.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/07092016-w ... -analysis/
http://www.eurasiareview.com/07092016-w ... -analysis/
For instance. The Ruskies are quite hot on the issue and always have been.Modern multi-spectral obscurants are used to defeat enemy reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition systems that operate in the visual, infrared, and millimeter wave regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Phalanx
Russians have always used Electronic warfare both active and passive much better than the westSpinflight wrote:
For instance. The Ruskies are quite hot on the issue and always have been.
-
- Member
- Posts: 345
- Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00
Re: Phalanx
I am well aware of that thank you very much, but that is not what you said. And the rest of your proposal is similarly mixed up.marktigger wrote:Enigmatically wrote:With respect I think there are bigger problems than that.marktigger wrote:difficulty with an unmanned outstation is keeping it online who sorts out stoppages and breakdowns, who cleans and maintains it? more importantly who reloads it?
But I'd rewind to:Since when?Spinflight wrote:More specifically I'm thinking about smoke, radar can't see through it,
Radar is a 2 edged sword yes you pinpoint your enemy but your enemy pinpoint you by your emissions and unless you hard wire your data links from other sensors and C3 you run risk of jamming/spoofing or errors
How in the hell are we supposed to be able to keep cables to each of these independent CIWS (and yes I am aware of torpedo control wires but they are designed for one short use away from surface effects) intact.
And resolve the stability issues for the CIWS.
Plus CIWS is a point defence weapon so to keep them several km (assume a minimum of 4) from the ship you would need at least 12 to cover just 180 degrees
Any many other issues. This is fantasy stuff. Sorry
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Phalanx
if you are operating inshore in a landing area its not as crazy as it sounds, Aircraft will try and use routes that the are masked by terrain so they pop up at the last moment. The terrain masking approach will have choke points a phalanx or other AD system in a position like that could severely hamper an air attack.
For a seaward side you need an AD ship with a radar system that can look inland and out to sea. better still Airborne early warning that is good enough to minimise surface clutter
For a seaward side you need an AD ship with a radar system that can look inland and out to sea. better still Airborne early warning that is good enough to minimise surface clutter
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: Phalanx
There's many vessels that use azimuth and tunnel thrusters to provide stability. Especially research vessels that would otherwise be limited to the sea states they could launch ROVs. You can basically negate any roll, pitch and whatnot. I'm just thinking of a smaller craft.
Many of those same ROVs are controlled by cable, sometimes at greater distances than what I'm suggesting. Yes it's fantasy, course it is but hopefully interesting fantasy.
The GUA8s on the Goalkeeper might be effective against ASMs out to a couple of clicks, but they'd also be hellishly effective against pretty much anything on the shore. With remote optical and radar sensors the host ship could afford to blind itself, and any enemy forces, with smoke.
Just an idea, you don't have to like it.
Many of those same ROVs are controlled by cable, sometimes at greater distances than what I'm suggesting. Yes it's fantasy, course it is but hopefully interesting fantasy.
Was thinking a bit less than 4km, 2-3 probably. Basically rather than the modern way of staying over the horizon and using the range on the guns closing right in. US Navy studies found that 3500 yards was optimum. Back in the days when ships had armor plate this was possible.Plus CIWS is a point defence weapon so to keep them several km (assume a minimum of 4) from the ship you would need at least 12 to cover just 180 degrees
The GUA8s on the Goalkeeper might be effective against ASMs out to a couple of clicks, but they'd also be hellishly effective against pretty much anything on the shore. With remote optical and radar sensors the host ship could afford to blind itself, and any enemy forces, with smoke.
Just an idea, you don't have to like it.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Phalanx
smoke is another 2 edged sword yes your enemey can't see what you are doing but you also can't see what he is doing and it's also not bullet proof!
-
- Member
- Posts: 579
- Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Re: Phalanx
Quite.
However anything on the shore deciding to have a crack at the smoke cloud would have to contend with some 30mm goodness, 4.5 in direct fire and anything you happened to have up your sleeve over the horizon.
Even tanks would be a bit upset with an Avenger or three merrily farting away.
However anything on the shore deciding to have a crack at the smoke cloud would have to contend with some 30mm goodness, 4.5 in direct fire and anything you happened to have up your sleeve over the horizon.
Even tanks would be a bit upset with an Avenger or three merrily farting away.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Phalanx
The last time I skimmed through the Joint Doctrine publication it still contained the 360 degree assumption of ship radar & missile coverage... when the above quote is much closer to the truth. Unless you have chosen to land somewhere with a billiard table like terrain.marktigger wrote:The terrain masking approach will have choke points a phalanx or other AD system in a position like that could severely hamper an air attack.
For a seaward side you need an AD ship with a radar system that can look inland and out to sea.
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: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Phalanx
Last time i read AD doctrine (land) the use of terrain and deploying systems to best effect in the terrain.ArmChairCivvy wrote: The last time I skimmed through the Joint Doctrine publication it still contained the 360 degree assumption of ship radar & missile coverage... when the above quote is much closer to the truth. Unless you have chosen to land somewhere with a billiard table like terrain.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Phalanx
marktigger wrote:the Joint Doctrine publication
Two different publications, the Joint one should be the well of all wisdom? This is all common sense, but just shows how the marketing slogans used to navigate the T45 investment through live on as "the truth".marktigger wrote:Last time i read AD doctrine (land)
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: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
- hovematlot
- Member
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
Re: Phalanx
Has there been an additional order of 6 Phalanx to cover the 3 new T26 on order, or do we have enough already?marktigger wrote:so albion has 2 phalanx fitted
have numbers increased does anyone know?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Phalanx
there was an order for more a while back, think it was for the carriers, don't have enough to equip the T26's as well.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Phalanx
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