Here’s a simple awareness post. Are you aware that our main (and only!) surface combatant has almost no close in self-defense weapon fit? It consists of a single aft mounted CIWS and … nothing else.
As an example, here is a photo, dated 13-Oct-2009, of the USS McCampbell (DDG-85) showing the single aft mounted CIWS and … nothing else.
 |
| USS McCampbell - Note the single CIWS aft. |
Again, here is a Jul 2016 photo showing the Spruance and Momsen with no forward CIWS.
 |
| Spruance and Momsen without forward CIWS |
Lest you think there was some temporary shortage of CIWS and that the ships have since been equipped, here is a photo of USS Nitze (DDG-94) dated 12-Oct-2020 and it shows the same single CIWS configuration.
 |
| USS Nitze, DDG-94 |
Although exact information is hard to come by it appears that DDG-51 to DDG-84 have two CIWS and DDG-85 on have only a single CIWS. None have RAM or SeaRAM.
Alternatively, SeaRAM appears to have been installed on four Burkes (DDG-64, DDG-71, DDG-75, DDG-78) in place of their CIWS.
Here is a Feb 2021 photo of USS Carney (DDG-64) showing a SeaRAM in place of the aft CIWS mount.
 |
| USS Carney with aft SeaRAM in place of CIWS |
I don’t know whether the Navy’s experiment with SeaRAM will be continued and expanded or not. New construction ships do not appear to show any SeaRAM so I’m assuming this is a dead end trend but we’ll see.
So, what’s the problem with only a single close in weapon system? As we’ve previously demonstrated, naval anti-air engagements are likely to start at the horizon rather than hundreds of miles out as the Navy seems to believe (see, “Detection and Engagement Range”). That means there will only be time for a few defensive missile launches which, in turn, means that close in weapon systems will assume vital importance. Given the likelihood of saturation attacks and the number of missile likely to get through the very brief medium range (horizon) ESSM engagement zone, large numbers of close in weapons will be needed. A single CIWS is going to be quickly overwhelmed.
The more recent CIWS versions have a ready magazine of 1550 rounds and a firing rate of 4500 rds/min. That means the CIWS has a total firing time of 20 seconds before the ammo drum is depleted. Even if one optimistically assumes, say, 5 seconds per engagement, that’s only 4 engagements before the CIWS is rendered inoperative due to emptying the ammo drum. Yes, the drum can be replaced but that is a manual operation and time consuming. Any attack will be over long before reload occurs. The arithmetic makes it painfully obvious that a ship needs several CIWS to have any chance of survival.
Another problem is CIWS coverage area. As you can see, the aft CIWS covers only the aft 180 deg or so sector. Our main surface ship doesn’t even have full 360 deg close in defensive coverage! If a missile approaches from a forward aspect, Burkes have no close in defense whatsoever! Our main surface warship has no close in defensive coverage for half its aspect??!
I wonder if the lack of CIWS installations is the result of the Navy having bet – and lost! – that fully functional AAW lasers would be available by now and that the Navy could, therefore, save money by not installing CIWS? That’s pure speculation on my part but it certainly fits nicely with the way the Navy thinks, doesn’t it?
In any case, we need to immediately begin adding CIWS and/or SeaRAM mounts to our Burke class destroyers. We might also begin considering new forms of close in AAW defense (see, “A New AAW”).
After seeing ships with forward mounts, I had assumed that it was a class-wide retrofit. My mistake!!
ReplyDeleteIdk if they're holding off, waiting for lasers to be available or not, but this example is a great microcosm of Navy thinking. Sacrifice/ignore the "now" capabilities in hopes of future systems. But not having any close in defense from 50% of the possible inbound bearings??? Wow. Im afraid our Navy is going to earn a group Darwin Award at this rate...
It just shows where our design philosophy has yielded bad margins on ships. Japan and Korea do not have these issues and basically use the same gear and configuration.
ReplyDeleteIf the CWIS dosen't stop the missiles, the armor will...
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, is there any logical reason the Burkes, and seemingly the whole western world, settled on using 1 CWIS per ship?
A combination of cost and the twin beliefs that the missiles will always hit and that a major conflict will never happen again where warships are sunk.
DeleteI mean it's been 39 years since the Falklands conflict and that was the last time I believe a western nations warship has been sunk.
It's not the whole world, though it is a minority that use more than x1 CIWS.
DeleteThe Italian's main ships have 2-3 76mm AA guns per ship (Strales).
Australia will be putting x2 Phalanx on the Hunter's. Yes, their current ships only have x1 each too at the moment, though it was announced the RAN plan to put x3 Phalanx on their Canberra's.
Denmark frigates have x2 CIWS as well.
Andrew
Burke has 3 layer of missile defense - first SM-3 missiles (RM-161), followed by ESSM (RIM-162), than either CIWS or SeaRam (RIM-116).
ReplyDeleteCIWS is the final defense for missiles penetrate the first two. SeaRAM are installed in LCS and will be installed on Constellation (not install CIWS) thus Navy actually values it over CIWS.
Current CIWS has a serious problem - cannot effectively intercept supersonic missiles due to its low fire speed. Navy had project to upgrade it to ~7,500 rounds/minute but ended in failure.
Russia's solution Kashtan is to put two CIWS (AK630?) together to achieve ~9,000 rounds/minute but there is a serious problem - each system's vibration interfere the other.
China's solution type 1130 is regarded best so far as it fires ~11,000 round/minute in single installation. Not just CIWS, China also has HQ-10 which is like SeaRam for final defense. China claims HQ-10 is more advanced than SeaRam but no one can verify as no one can hold a competition of the two.
"China's solution type 1130 is regarded best so far as it fires ~11,000 round/minute in single installation."
DeleteThe 1130 has a magazine of 1280 rounds and simple math gives a sustained fire time of 7 seconds at which point the unit is inoperative.
One report claims that 1280 rds is enough for 40 engagements and, if so, this translates to 32 rds per engagement and an engagement time of 0.2 seconds per engagement. Does any of that seem remotely believable to you?
"Current CIWS has a serious problem - cannot effectively intercept supersonic missiles due to its low fire speed."
Give a reference for that statement.
Well, the navy went to the 3 inchers after WWII as the smaller mounts didn't have the stopping power to keep the Kamakazi's from flying into the ship. I've kind of doubted the CIWS stopping power the entire time. More like a way to avoid a direct clean hit.
Delete"I've kind of doubted the CIWS stopping power the entire time."
DeleteSo, what do you suggest that would have sufficient stopping power?
Your doubt is why the Navy should be conducting realistic tests. We need to put a CIWS on a barge and launch actual missiles at it and see exactly what it can and cannot do. For reasons that elude me, the Navy refuses to conduct realistic testing of any of its weapon systems.
"More like a way to avoid a direct clean hit."
Is there a problem with that? Getting hit by debris (which is what I assume you're alluding to) is far preferable to a hit by an intact, functioning missile.
This is also a good argument for armor. If you can break a missile into debris and have armor to mitigate any debris damage, you're doing okay.
Right, it would be good to have real data. To me its a question as to whether its 57mm or 76mm.
DeleteAre you suggesting a 57/76 mm CIWS????
DeleteFor once we (The UK)seem not to be "bottom of the class" on this with both our T45 Destroyers and T26 frigates with/getting 2!
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of photos of Type 45 show the ships without CIWS. Do you have any feel for what the current fitting is?
DeleteI ask because there's an awful lot of that 'for but not with' stuff out in the world!
Type 45s have 2x Phalanx mounted amidships, hard to see in a lot of pics.
DeleteThe RN just announced they're adding 24 SeaCeptors to the forward missile barbette. Adding to the existing 48 cell Sylver VLS. A rare instance on an actual use
of fitted for, being translated to fitted.
Rule Britannia.
I'm aware of the location of the CIWS but the vast majority of photos show the sponsons empty. Let me know if you have find any assessment of number of installed units. I've seen a few pics of installed units so at least some exist.
DeleteOne of the problems with 'for but not with' is that when war comes, you need the 'with' right away and something like CIWS units take years to produce so the 'with' part is actually useless.
The one in the black sea and one w/ qe have them fitted. hard to see w uk paint scheme.
DeleteThe RN "swaps" them around according to where the ships are going (to save money again). if anyone is interested here was "state of play" August 2020 according to Navy Lookout:
Deletehttps://www.navylookout.com/last-ditch-defence-the-phalanx-close-in-weapon-system-in-focus/
Which would suggest about 40% of the navy being deployable to somewhere "Dangerous"
You have to look for pictures of the ships after 2013 when they all had 2 CIWS.
DeleteHMS Daring D32 in 2016
Starboard side
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Daring_(D32)#/media/File:HMS_DARING_sails_in_British_Gibraltar_territorial_waters_MOD_45160521.jpg
Port side
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Daring_(D32)#/media/File:HMS_DARING_sails_in_British_Gibraltar_territorial_waters_MOD_45160525.jpg
HMS Dauntless D33 in 2015
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-03-17/type-45-destroyer-hms-dauntless-enjoys-the-gulf-in-dubai
HMS Diamond D34 in 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Diamond_(D34)#/media/File:HMS_Diamond_1.jpg
HMS Dragon D35 in 2013
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/HMS_Dragon_Near_Gibraltar_MOD_45155272.jpg
HMS Defender in 2014
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/HMS_Defender_Escorting_USS_George_HW_Bush_MOD_45157996.jpg
HMS Duncan D37 in 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Duncan_(D37)#/media/File:HMS_Duncan_-_1.jpg
@Mr Shed
DeleteWell that's depressing though at least they have enough for the current combat ships to have full loadouts since the RFA and LPD ships shouldn't be anywhere near a combat zone anyway.
"The RN "swaps" them around"
DeleteInteresting write up that I hadn't seen. Thanks for the link.
The table in the article shows 19 units deployed but the text claims 41+ units in inventory. Do we think that's correct? If so, that's a lot of unused inventory.
8 being upgraded to the new standard and 13 in maintenance or in the process of being fitted or removed to either current ships and under construction ships maybe?
DeleteIn an ideal world it would be that all ships are going to get a full loadout over the next few years it did take awhile for Type 45's to even get the guns fitted in the first place after all.
I would think that as a minimum, on a ship the size of a Burke, you would want 2 SeaRAM--1 forward and 1 aft--and 4 CIWS--2 port and 2 starboard. More for bigger ships, maybe fewer for smaller. Since they are bolt-ons with no need for feed from below, only issues should be space and weight distribution. I see what looks like plenty of space, and if we are that marginal on weight then we need to rethink something.
ReplyDeleteLots of CIWS backed by armor to protect the ship from the debris (and minimize damage of a clean hit leaker).
DeleteI really like CDR Chip's idea of 4 Phalanx and 2 SeaRAM on a Burke sized ship.
Using that as a gauge, we'd need hundreds of CIWS to outfit the fleet properly.
And since they are a bolt-on, they should be able to be placed on cargo ships. If that is workable (and not a greater danger to each other than to possible incoming missiles) it would increase the survivability of convoys.
To be ready for that, we'd need to have scores of those already produced and pre-positioned to be bolted on in time of war.
Lutefisk
My guess is it's simply budgetary. Why buy 2 Phalanx when they just sitting there doing nothing, just build 2 locations and only provide for 1 CWIS per ship. I guess USN figures if they have to go to war, they'll have time to install the second one....
ReplyDeleteAs for lasers or other future weapon systems, thats really just providing a great cover for USN to save a few bucks on CWIS, nothing else IMO.
" I guess USN figures if they have to go to war, they'll have time to install the second one...."
DeleteAnd where will these suddenly needed CIWS come from? It takes months/years to build a CIWS and every country in the world will be screaming for them. It will take years to outfit the ships and by then it won't matter. That's the problem with 'for but not with'. If you don't already have them, you can't suddenly produce them out of thin air. If a war starts and you don't have them, you're not going to get them in time to do anything.
"I guess USN figures if they have to go to war, they'll have time to install the second one."
DeleteDo you trust the USN to get that done if the need arises? Really? Seriously?
Not at all, I was being sarcastic, doesn't always translate well by text. We have some Brits here, they know how it went during Falkland war and how they had to look all over the place, I think even museums to find some parts or hardware. Or had just days to weeks to develop, test and send South some hardware that never got bought because of the budget and "we'll buy it when the need arises"....
Delete"Do you trust the USN to get that done if the need arises? Really? Seriously?"
DeleteIt's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of manufacturing capacity. If war starts, the Navy will place a sudden, panic order for around a hundred new CIWS. It will take a year or more to get the first one delivered and several years, at best, to get the rest.
The entire 'for but not with' concept is a pure fantasy that CANNOT happen simply due to manufacturing constraints. You fight with what you have on day one so we'd better have what we need on day one.
Something has gone really wrong in the US if with a 135% larger population you can't manufacture a few hundred guns for years when back in WW2 you could produce over a thousand 5inch guns and over 10,000 40mm bofors a year.
DeleteThe US will need to go full war economy again.
My understanding is that CIWS is/was manufactured by General Dynamics at just one facility located in Saco, Maine. I think Raytheon may have since acquired the division that manufactures the units. Raytheon is the current provider of upgrades and conversions for the units.
DeleteProduction began in 1978 and as of 2007, 900 units had been built which averages to around 31 units per year production capacity.
"Something has gone really wrong in the US"
DeleteYou've been reading this blog, right? Yeah, things have gone really wrong!
"Production began in 1978 and as of 2007, 900 units had been built which averages to around 31 units per year production capacity."
DeleteSo if we are "optimistic" and put in that "hopefully" there's some spare surge capacity.....we could get 3 units a month?!? Better not need CWIS or lose to many ships!!!
I read your referenced post "A New AAW". I have a thought about it. I apologize if you feel it's inappropriate since it isn't directly about CIWS systems.
ReplyDeleteIn the comments of that post, there was a discussion about expanding the radar detection range with blimps, placed some miles out along the threat axis, to detect incoming missiles earlier. The problem with this is that "picket" vehicles (ships or blimps) may be very vulnerable since they are far from the defense capability.
But suppose we used slightly different tactics. Suppose the blimp were directly above the Burke. Note that higher altitude alone results in a dramatic increase in radar horizon (and detection range). For example, at an altitude of 3000 feet (easily achievable with a blimp) the radar horizon is 67 miles away. A bit further for something that is actually above sea level, like a ship or even sea skimming missile. And in that position, there is at least the possibility that the Burke itself could provide some defense of the blimp.
This doesn't obviate the need for CIWS, of course. It just gives a chance for more layers of somewhat longer range defenses first.
What do you think?
Simply raising a small radar up isn't going to help much. You need a sufficiently powerful and large radar to do the job. What radar currently fills that role? It's the E-2 Hawkeye radar, of course. So, we need a Hawkeye type radar. How big of a blimp do you think would be needed to lift a Hawkeye type radar unit? We also need to provide power, data links, controls, etc. but we'll ignore those issues for the moment. A blimp and radar large enough for the task will be a very large, non-stealthy, detectable object that, being directly above the host ship, will provide a very convenient aim point for enemy targeting of both the host ship and the blimp. Do you recall the posts about the two hundred mile range, hypersonic air-to-air missiles the Chinese have? The non-stealthy, non-maneuvering blimp will have a very short life span!
DeleteSo, with that in mind, what you YOU think about the concept?
"A blimp and radar large enough for the task will be a very large, non-stealthy, detectable object that, being directly above the host ship, will provide a very convenient aim point for enemy targeting of both the host ship and the blimp."
DeleteYou have brought up this issue before and I would think that we need to minimize the time the radiating happen when we are in EMCON and leverage it during combat. We need a a cheap, rapidly deploy-able blimp (by rapidly decompress condensed gas?) that hooks up to a radar system complex. I envision that this would be deploy in the span of 30 secs - 1 minute prior or during first sign of contact where it would rapidly gains altitude to increase radar coverage. I don't expect this to be much survivable, it's supposed to be destroyed during each engagement. When it is destroyed, the radar complex that it hooks up to is supposed to drop itself onto the water below, protecting the expensive and difficult to replace radar complex. After the battle, I would foresee this radar being recollected by a RHIB or a MH-60R to be used for other blimps. The success of this concept will rely on how useful this self-contained system for the price and how rapidly this blimp could be deployed.
"deploy in the span of 30 secs - 1 minute prior or during first sign of contact "
DeleteYou've set up a bit of a Catch-22 scenario. The point of a blimp surveillance system is to spot targets much farther out, BEFORE ANY OTHER SYSTEM CAN SEE THEM. If you wait until the targets are already spotted, that means they're already at the horizon and it's too late. If you use the blimp for continual surveillance, you'll spot targets farther out but you'll clearly pinpoint your own location. If you use the blimp surveillance only sporadically, you'll likely miss the incoming missile until they're already at the horizon which negates the benefit of the blimp.
"When it is destroyed, the radar complex that it hooks up to is supposed to drop itself onto the water below, protecting the expensive and difficult to replace radar complex."
Wow! That's some impressively rugged delicate electronics you're envisioning there! They would have to survive an airburst fragmentation explosion unhit, then survive a long plunge into the sea, then survive total exposure to seawater, then survive crude handling by a recover team. Wow!
Just out of curiosity, what size/weight do you envision this radar being that it can be 'shot' hundreds of feet into the air in 30-60 seconds and then drop into the sea without being damaged? I ask because the Navy had an engineering challenge producing a Hawkeye radar that could survive the shock of a carrier landing. Dropping at terminal velocity straight into the sea has got to be many orders of magnitude more of a shock!
I give you full marks for creative thinking but you might want to think it through just a bit further!
"The non-stealthy, non-maneuvering blimp will have a very short life span!"
DeleteYou're probably right, of course, but on the off chance that you've missed something, let's consider a few factors:
(1) Radar visibility. It's true that the gas bag for a blimp is quite large (almost as big as a ship). But IT ISN'T MADE OF METAL. It's made of fabric, which has a far, far lower reflectivity to radar signals than metal. In fact, some research has been done on weaving in radar absorbing materials into the fabric, making the reflectivity even smaller. The gondola, of course (the part that contains the engines, fuel, radar, and controls) is not made of fabric, but (a) it's much smaller than the gas bag, (b) there's nothing to prevent us from using stealth shaping on it, and (c) we could even add radar absorbing coatings to it. In fact, one might plausibly argue that it's even easier to make a stealth blimp than a stealth airplane, since the blimp does not have to also satisfy a raft of aerodynamic requirements, like providing lift to maintain flight, maintaining stable flight, handling high-g maneuvering, and maintaining the quality of the stealth coating in the presence of high temperatures from air friction encountered during high (especially supersonic) speeds. So I think the blimp will likely be much less visible on radar than a ship. Is it enough? Don't know, but I doubt is would be like a giant neon sign shouting out for hundreds of miles "here I am, come get me".
""The non-stealthy, non-maneuvering blimp will have a very short life span!"
DeleteSecond factor:
(2) Infrared. Blimps produce much less heat than either aircraft or ships. For example, there's no jet engine spewing out vast amount of superheated exhaust. (as there is even on the Burke!) They operate with less power and are typically run by diesels, which produce lower volumes of exhaust that is easier to capture and cool off before dumping overboard. In addition, the much lower speed compared to aircraft means that there is much less skin heating due to air friction than even a subsonic aircraft, much less a supersonic one. So the outer skin of the gas bag is much closer to the ambient air temperature than even a subsonic aircraft. I suspect this means that infrared detection range will also be reduced.
(3) Visual detection. It's certain true that blimps are big and imposing, close up. But if you're close up, you're within weapons range of the Burke. Further out, from the strictly size point of view, it can probably be seen further than an aircraft, but couldn't we cleverly choose an external color scheme to make it blend into the sky, and therefore be harder to see?
""The non-stealthy, non-maneuvering blimp will have a very short life span!"
DeleteFourth factor:
(4) Your statement suggests that a blimp would be a one hit kill for an air to air missile. I'm not sure that's true. Remember that air to air missiles are typically fairly small and have small warheads. Typically fragmentation ones. It's lethal to a fighter plane because fighter planes have a very high internal density of critical and vulnerable stuff (fuel, tightly machined parts, and various other stuff). But remember, a blimp is mostly empty space filled with a non-flammable gas (helium) at rather low pressure (barely above the ambient pressure outside the gas bag). If a missile hits the gas bag, I suspect the result is likely to be similar to the "bullet through a piece of paper" analogy that you frequently mention with respect to hypersonic projectiles. It'll certainly make a hole, but the hole will be small compared to the size of the gas bag. Some helium will certainly leak out, but since the internal pressure is only slightly higher than the external pressure, it won't leak out at a catastrophic rate. I think it'll probably take awhile for enough to leak out for the blimp to crash (slowly).
Bottom line. You might be correct, but to be sure I think it requires that someone who really understands the materials do the math to determine radar detection range, infrared detection range, and vulnerability to missiles. I don't think we really know enough right now to reject it out of hand.
"It's made of fabric"
DeleteBack in the early days of Aegis, one of the problems they faced was detecting far off birds (which are not made of metal) and seeing them as targets. This was dealt with via software filters. Radars can most certainly detect non-metallic objects!
"one hit kill for an air to air missile."
DeleteWWI pilots routinely shot down blimps with simple machine guns. A fragmentation missile will do a good bit more than put one or two holes in a blimp. It will shred it with hundreds/thousands of holes. The shrapnel will be blazing hot which might or might not set a blimp on fire.
Far more importantly, the missile will destroy the actual payload of the blimp!
"Visual detection"
DeleteThe old F-14 Tomcat optical sensor (TV camera) could spot aircraft at 70-100 miles. I've got to believe that today's IRST can do much better. That aside, optical detection would not normally be a factor other than, perhaps, in terminal guidance of a missile.
"Radar visibility"
DeleteSetting all active detection issues aside, a radar blimp will provide its own detection for the enemy by actively emitting. If it doesn't emit then it serves no purpose. This is the age old dilemma about radar and a blimp does not somehow magically solve that.
As I said, it's an interesting idea that is utterly impractical.
I read that the Burke's operating in the Med had the SeaRAM installed to increase their AA firepower since that iteration of Aegis couldn't do Air Defense and BMD at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThe old Sprucans had two CIWS I believe and they were placed forward starboard and aft port. Was that arrangement based on side impacts from anti-ship missiles? With Burke's single CIWS mount forward or aft, does that not expose the other half of the ship to missiles? Is there overconfidence in the AEGIS capability? BVRAAM is a great method to counter missile threats, but wait, neither the F/A-18 or the F-35 is capable of that particular mission. If you can kill missiles as far from the fleet as possible, that would be ideal. For ships that cost a nice chunk of change, would it not be prudent to toss in a little extra protection?
ReplyDeleteThe Spruance class went through multiple arrangements. At the end, they included a RAM launcher on the fantail. Also, they mounted a Sea Sparrow launcher aft of the flight deck.
DeleteI've seen photos of at least one Spruance with 3 CIWS (forward starboard, aft starboard, aft port), a Sea Sparrow (aft of flight deck), and a RAM launcher (fantail).
Funny thing about Spruance, growing up during 80s, always heard they were under armed, nowadays, its like " wow, that many weapons?!?"
Deletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41525/heres-our-best-look-yet-at-the-navys-new-laser-dazzler-system
ReplyDeleteThis just came out, says 7 units have been installed or planned. Didn't see anything about testing against real targets. So would appear that USN is keeping the front CWIS spot open for razzle dazzle system.....hope it works!
I haven't seen the power output on Odin, but its basically to take down UAVs on the cheap. Helios will be 60kw for about the same effect. The 150kw on the LPD is where it can take a crack at something more interesting. Trick is its gear takes up the space meant for the VLS and then some. But thats a custom module built from scratch.
Delete"hope it works!"
Delete'Works' at what? It appears to be a low power 'blinder' which might be useful against a camera on a handheld quadcopter but what else can it do? There aren't that many small, handheld quadcopters out in the middle of the ocean. Can it blind a high subsonic or supersonic missile conducting its high-g, terminal evasive maneuvers? If not, it's of very limited use.
The Constellation spec'd for 150 kW power for a DEW, a Helios possible fit if its successful in its trials, Helios spec'd to take out UAVs, as long as its not raining :).
ReplyDeleteNo Phalanx fitted to Constellation, for CIWS relying on RAM with a single 21 cell Mk49 launcher, not SeaRAM with its built in radars/fire control computer, presuming RAM fire control will depend on the ships main radar the three panel EASR/SPY-6(V)3 and Aegis CMS.
The decision not to fit Phalanx maybe questioned but its a weapon with limited range and power so very unlikely to stop a BrahMos or equivalent though would be useful for taking out UAVs, looks a better option than Helios.
As naval observers and analysts we have this very bad habit of faulting a weapon system for not being able to win a war single-handed. Just because CIWS might not be able to vaporize the world's largest, most powerful anti-ship missile we deem it worthless. Do we really think a RAM will vaporize a BrahMos? That aside, what about all the other anti-ship missiles that might attack us? CIWS ought to do pretty well against most of them. Even a BrahMos will be broken up and I'd rather be hit by a broken up, slowed, non-functional debris than a fully functional missile. I would also point out that CIWS could keep firing and destroy large fragments of a missile, if necessary.
DeleteNow, if we have an alternative that is head and shoulders better than a CIWS, by all means let's use it. In this case (Constellation), it shouldn't be a one-or-the-other choice. A Constellation should have 2x CIWS AND 2x SeaRAM, AS A MINIMUM, and I'd rather see 4x CIWS and 2x SeaRAM. It's a $1.5B ship. Shouldn't we give it all the protection we can?
We've grown so used to under-armed ships that we've come to believe one RAM is a good close in defense.
I think if we are lucky and get anything resembling a cruiser, 4 point defense weapons with aerial capability would be a huge win. I look at FFG as that mk 110 needs ammo to be the CIWS. In a world where we are shooting for the stars, they could move the NULKA launchers aft above the boat davit and place a CIWS on sponsons on each side where the Nulka's were. Again, food for thought when they realize they are losing DDG just to get FFG hulls.
DeleteThought RAM would have a much better chance throwing ~ two ton Brahmos off course at a longer range due to a minor deflection making it miss the ship whereas the short range Phalanx firing its projectiles in the final two seconds needs to deflect the missile at a much larger angle to miss and with the cumulative Phalanx projectiles 20/25 kg mass trying to move ~2 ton missile think limited chance. As mentioned above the numerous 20mm Oerlikon and 40mm Bofors were unable to deflect the Kamikaze aircraft so it followed its ballistic trajectory and hit nevertheless, my understanding Navy response was to fit and use as many 5" guns as possible with its more powerful and heavier shell, the envisaged 3"/70 gun never entered service before end of war.
DeleteSaying that do agree with your thoughts that giving ships all the protection we can, do wonder which is the better RAM option, the 11 cell SeaRAM or the 21 cell MK49 launcher, depends on their fire control systems, is that of the SeaRAM that much better to make up for 10 fewer missiles.
What must not forget is soft kill, as you have pointed out previously has proved more effective than hard kill.
I look at that brief post war moment before guns gave way to missiles. Norfolk, Mitscher, Forest Sherman, and Northampton. headed toward all 5" and 3".
Delete"would have a much better chance"
DeleteThat's the problem. No one knows. The Navy steadfastly refuses to conduct realist tests so no one, including the Navy, knows what actually works and what doesn't.
There are two questions related to close in defense:
1. What is the stopping power of the weapon?
2. What is the accuracy of the weapon?
It does no good to have enormous stopping power and poor accuracy. Conversely, it does little good to have good accuracy and poor stopping power. Where does RAM or CIWS or whatever fall on the balance scale of those two requirements? No one knows. We need actual tests.
Lacking any actual tests or data, I have no faith that RAM has the requisite accuracy or stopping power. RAM has a 24lb fragmentation warhead is a 24 lb fragmenting warhead enough to stop a 6600 lb, Mach 3, BrahMos missile? I don't know but I have doubts.
Similarly, I have doubts about the stopping power of the CIWS although we've seen a degree of demonstrated accuracy, at least, which is why I lean towards CIWS, if forced to choose one or the other. My strong preference is, of course, both!
"Norfolk, Mitscher, Forest Sherman, and Northampton. headed toward all 5" and 3"."
Delete???? Norfolk as an ASW ship and never intended to carry more than a 3" gun. Mitscher was a destroyer class with 5" and 3" guns. Forrest Sherman was a destroyer with 5" and 3" guns. Northampton was a Command Light Cruiser (CLC) with 5" and 3" guns.
None of these ships was ever intended to be anything heavier so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Destroyers had always had 5" guns. That was standardized during WWII. There was certainly no movement away from heavier guns toward lighter guns, at least not until the missile age arrived.
I'm saying they went hard to 3" and 5" after the war for AAW. I think the Italians have figured out another option. They keep dual usa and afford ability if their ammunition works. We are paying to reinvent the wheel with Mad-Fires and Alamo. At least Alamo is getting bought now.
Delete"I'm saying they went hard to 3" and 5" after the war for AAW."
DeleteI'm completely lost as to what your point is, if any.
The Navy recognized during WWII that the 5" gun was desirable, once the proximity fuze was developed. There was no movement to the 5" gun after the war. That movement started during the war. The 3" gun was just an evolutionary development of the 40 mm. Again, the need for something heavier than the 0.50 cal, 1.1", and 20 mm AA fits was recognized early in the war. There was no post-war movement to the 3" gun other than that it finished its development and became available.
The 3"/70, which was the successor to the 3"/50, was chosen as the smallest gun that could accommodate the VT fuze but the gun proved unsuccessful in service and was quickly withdrawn. From the Navweaps site:
"...the mounting proved to be so unreliable and hard to maintain that it was quickly withdrawn from duty and may have had the shortest service life of any weapon system ever used by the US Navy."
Like I say, I'm lost as to your point.
As I noted some weeks ago US must adopt APWKS or Stinger for short range interception system and give these blocks for aircraft or even warships to help Phalanx CIWS with its mission.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think F-15 EX Block 2 would be far better than F-18 Super Hornet Block 3 especially for carrier based aircraft. He has greater combat radius, better speed, maneuver and ordnance of course.
Hey, Comnavops pay attention to my words.
"US must adopt APWKS or Stinger for short range interception system"
DeleteYou might want to familiarize yourself with the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) which is in use on various Navy ships.
" I think F-15 EX Block 2 would be far better than F-18 Super Hornet Block 3 especially for carrier based aircraft."
F-15 is not a carrier aircraft as I'm sure you know. If you're suggesting a navalized version, you must also know the challenges in successfully accomplishing such a conversion.
"Hey, Comnavops pay attention to my words."
As written, this is disrespectful and I would normally delete the entire comment but I suspect there's a language issue here. Please don't write anything like this again.
Sorry this is off-topic but it seemed like it might be good navy news for a change, so I though you might want to look into it a bit.
ReplyDeleteApparently the Submarine service is practicing more realistic training! This article is about a newly formed "OPFOR" which uses enemy tactics to help train submarine crews.
https://cimsec.org/undersea-red-captain-eric-sager-on-the-submarine-forces-new-aggressor-squadron/
What the article did not say, and I've heard no mention of, is whether this is just classroom stuff or whether there's actually OPFOR submarines that participate in exercises just as Top Gun used OPFOR aircraft.
DeleteWell, according to this other article, they were looking for dedicated OPFOR submarines but (as of late 2019) did not have any. I imagine it would be a big ask, considering that we have a growing shortage of submarines, compared to combat commander requirements. There's also the fact that even if the unit does get an SSN or 2, that doesn't really solve the whole problem, since many opponents use SSKs, which have completely different signatures and tactics, and the US has none of those.
DeleteOh, incidentally, the article also mentions that the unit also supports other ASW units in addition to submarines.
Regarding the OPFOR submarine. I wonder if, instead of having a dedicated submarine just for OPFOR, they could temporarily use a regular submarine from the fleet, and just temporary embark a small team of tactical advisors to assist the captain in implementing Red tactics. I imagine most of the crew on the submarine does the same things regardless of the specific tactics.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35708/the-navy-now-has-a-submarine-aggressor-squadron
" I imagine it would be a big ask, considering that we have a growing shortage of submarines"
DeleteYOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!! You know that the Navy has early retired dozens of Los Angeles class submarines, any of which would make excellent OPFOR subs. We could also lease/buy any number of SSKs for this purpose at an almost free cost relative to the Navy budget.
The Navy has proposed retiring one or two LA class subs next year. Those would be excellent OPFOR subs AND THEY'RE ALREADY PAID FOR!
Well, they did early retire a bunch many years ago, but I think many of the recent retirements have quite a few years on them. There are a couple of hard limits on how long a submarine can stay in service. There's the energy in the reactor, of course (it's quite expensive to refuel the reactor) and there's also a limit to the number of times it can dive due, I believe, to metal fatigue on the hull. If these subs have not gone beyond those limits, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. I just don't know.
DeleteRE: the SSK's. Yes, the article actually talks about this as being a good reason for the Navy to get some SSK's.
Delete"I think many of the recent retirements have quite a few years on them."
DeleteIt doesn't matter. We're not asking them to be deployable or combat capable. They just need to be able to conduct day long excursions to simulate enemy subs. Don't even need a full crew.
There are also several subs sitting idle in the nuclear 'scrapping' waiting line that have less than 20 yrs service life used.
There is no excuse for not fielding a live OPFOR.
"It doesn't matter."
DeleteIt DOES matter. I assume that during the "day long excursion" the submarine will be diving, right?
Well, being underwater is a very stressful thing for a submarine, because the pressure is so high. That's a big deal, safety wise. It can only do it so many times. If it's exceeded the limit, the "day long excursion" is a risk, for the crew.
Regarding the subs sitting idle in the nuclear scrapping line, how long have they been there? Because I'm sure that for all those years, there's been no attempt to preserve the hull or contents, so it's just rotting away. You really want those subs to be diving now?
"It DOES matter. I assume that during the "day long excursion" the submarine will be diving, right?"
DeleteYou saw my reply, right? Here it is:
"They just need to be able to conduct day long excursions to simulate enemy subs."
I'm doing you the courtesy of assuming that you understand that simulating enemy submarine activity requires being able to dive and I don't need to explicitly state that. I said that they need to be able to conduct those exercises.
Few, if any, retired submarines have reached their hard, end of life limits. For reduced duty, such as this, they still have service life left. We've retired and are continuing to retire submarines at a rapid rate with varying years of service life. We would have no problem, whatsoever, picking out some subs with several years of useful reduced duty life left. Therefore, except in a rare case, it doesn't matter how much service life a sub has left when it retires because whatever it has will be sufficient in the short to moderate future.
I have no idea what condition idled, 'waiting' subs are in. Again, it doesn't matter. Whatever it would take to bring them back to reduced operating status would be negligible in Navy budget terms. They don't have to be brought back to combat status, just reduced operating status.
So, to sum up, we have the following options:
1. Use recently retired subs.
2. Use subs slated for retirement in the near future.
3. Use idled subs on the recycling waiting list.
4. Lease/purchase subs.
5. Specifically early retire LA class subs for this purpose since the Navy is trying to retire them, anyway.
We have plenty of options, plenty of funding, and no excuses for not creating a live OPFOR.
As I said in my very first reply. There are hard limits. If in fact the submarines have been retired without reaching them, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just don't know whether that's true or not. If it is, then I agree with you.
DeleteCheck out this post about LA class early retirements:
DeleteLA Class Retirements
Given that history, you can't possibly think there won't be more early retirements.
The two subs that Navy has proposed retiring next year have 37 and 34 years of service. So, one of those would seem to a few years left, at least.
I would also point out that dozens of active subs have been sitting idle over the years waiting for maintenance availabilities. I posted on this, recently. Any one of those would be a candidate for OPFOR - at least, they'd be doing something useful.
"Given that history, you can't possibly think there won't be more early retirements."
DeleteI can, but since we're predicting the future, I can't of course be certain. Note that ALL the early retirements occurred before about 2010, when threat perceptions were different, and we didn't believe we needed them as badly. Just like the F22 was canceled during that time when we didn't see peer threats. Obviously we were wrong, but what's done is done. All the more recent retirements were close to or after the 33 year line. The only exception is the USS Miami, which suffered a major fire in the shipyard (I believe it was arson). It would NOT have been cheap to restore it to service. As we recently learned from the Bonhomme Richard situation
Also note that there ARE hard limits which only approximate the predicted service life range. They depend on other factors like speed, frequency of dives and so on. Depending on how it's used, the original service life prediction can be off for perfectly reasonable reasons.
The submarine service typically is better trained, with more technical expertise, and has a much more strict safety culture than the surface navy. They track all the relevant factors very carefully. If they say the ship can't serve anymore, I'm inclined to believe they know a lot more about that ship than I do.
Having said that, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect that in some cases, a ship might not be good for another full deployment, but might still have enough in it for a couple of years of much shorter missions. If that's the case for a particular ship, I'm all for extending it a couple of years for OPFOR purposes.
Can we please stop fighting about this? I don't disagree with you, you know.
Oh, by the way, when I say the original service life prediction can be off a bit, I OF COURSE am not referring to the case where the submarine was retired after less than 20 years of service. Those were done for other reasons, often to save the cost of refueling, which is large. I'm referring to the case where the submarine is retired after 32 years instead of 33 years.
DeleteI seriously don't expect to see more 20 year retirements going forward. But that's a matter of opinion, of course. No one can know for sure.
"You've set up a bit of a Catch-22 scenario. The point of a blimp surveillance system is to spot targets much farther out, BEFORE ANY OTHER SYSTEM CAN SEE THEM."
ReplyDeleteI understand that it's the original idea behind a blimp but the more I think about it, I can't change the physical characteristics of a blimp. As deployed, even if the radar system is on passive mode, the blimp is a giant non-stealthy target that is a big beacon on-top of any units head. The purpose of this system is different, it is intended to provide a narrow purpose which is to extend tracking capability to targets that have been early warned by different external systems in a carrier group. It would be a mechanical radar optimized for narrow beam (I will go with the size of the Hawkeye for the time being). This is done to maximize the time that the unit can stay hidden under EMCON.
"Wow! That's some impressively rugged delicate electronics you're envisioning there! They would have to survive an airburst fragmentation explosion unhit, then survive a long plunge into the sea, then survive total exposure to seawater, then survive crude handling by a recover team. Wow!"
You're right, I kinda forgot about the amount of shock the system would be experiencing. I will offer some ideas to lessen the impact of the shock but unfortunately will increase the weight and the price of the concept. I believe after the airship is destroyed, we would have the complex deployed with parachutes to slow its descent. If this isn't enough (and I don't think it is), I would design a system with additional fuel and use the rocket to help slow down the descent even more. My worry is the rocket may not survive the fragmentation explosion and probably fail and explode. However, this doesn't dismiss the fact that the system have to be rugged for it to survive the initial impact and handling.
"Just out of curiosity, what size/weight do you envision this radar being that it can be 'shot' hundreds of feet into the air in 30-60 seconds and then drop into the sea without being damaged? I ask because the Navy had an engineering challenge producing a Hawkeye radar that could survive the shock of a carrier landing. Dropping at terminal velocity straight into the sea has got to be many orders of magnitude more of a shock!"
You are going to the heart of the problem here. Using your idea of a Hawkeye radar, I use the E-2C empty take off weight (which removes the crew and any kinds of fuel) and arbitrarily divide it by two to simulate a complex only containing the radar, FCS and a variety of other systems to make it work. It should be 20,100 lbs and then adding the rocket system and fuel, we should be approaching 25,000 lbs. We know from the past that an airship would be double the size of the American Blimp A-170 (I know it doesn't scale linearly, I'm just making a point). I haven't done the actual look into the force exerted on water impact (in case either the missile or the parachutes failed) and I will see if I can get it done soon enough.
I am interested in reading about the engineering challenge you mentioned, it might be helpful to determine what I am forgetting to take in account here.
"it is intended to provide a narrow purpose which is to extend tracking capability to targets that have been early warned by different external systems in a carrier group."
DeleteA carrier group already has a very high flying 'blimp'. It's the E-2 Hawkeye which has a much more capable radar than anything you'll fit on a blimp and it flies much higher. Plus, it has human analysts and various comm links. The blimp would serve no purpose in a carrier group.
"I am interested in reading about the engineering challenge you mentioned, it might be helpful to determine what I am forgetting to take in account here."
DeleteI doubt you'll find anything. That was all pre-Internet and the information was recorded in paper reports.
Another example of the shock challenge is the old F-14 Phoenix missiles. Despite hardening, they had strict carrier landing quotes because the shock damaged the electronics.
" 20,100 lbs"
DeleteI would be stunned if it's possible to lift a 20K lb load to altitude in 30-60 seconds.
By the way, is this blimp going to be sitting around inflated and loaded just waiting to rocket upwards? If not, it's going to take quite a while to ready it! If it is sitting around ready, it's going to take up enormous space on whatever vessel is the host (an aircraft carrier? if so, how will the carrier conduct air ops with a giant blimp sitting on the deck?).
"A carrier group already has a very high flying 'blimp'. It's the E-2 Hawkeye which has a much more capable radar than anything you'll fit on a blimp and it flies much higher. Plus, it has human analysts and various comm links. The blimp would serve no purpose in a carrier group."
DeleteI remember reading somewhere about the idea that an E-2 Hawkeye would have difficulties scanning a sea-skimming missile that would be lost in the waves and a reliable track couldn't be secured. To solve that issue, I think we need a relatively stationary radar that simply extends the Fire Control radar for the Burkes so that it could be intercepted much sooner (not the Burke's horizon) without relying on external sources (The Hawkeye doesn't need to continuously transfer information, revealing the locations of either). Of course, it would be nice to have the system do the detection as well but unless we could build a stealthy blimp, it's kinda out of the question.
"I would be stunned if it's possible to lift a 20K lb load to altitude in 30-60 seconds.
By the way, is this blimp going to be sitting around inflated and loaded just waiting to rocket upwards? If not, it's going to take quite a while to ready it! If it is sitting around ready, it's going to take up enormous space on whatever vessel is the host (an aircraft carrier? if so, how will the carrier conduct air ops with a giant blimp sitting on the deck?)."
I originally envision this blimp to be housed in a tube system like a VLS. That's why I mention the idea of rapidly decompressing condensed gas, simply because I couldn't find any available system that talks about a rapid method to pump it up. Oh and I believe this system was supposedly a balloon when I first do the visualizations until I realized balloons cannot carry as much.
Now that we established it being a blimp which is rigid (but does it allow to move) and it needs to be attached to a unit with organic firepower capability, I'm not sure where it should go. Should we place it behind the destroyer and tow it alone? Should it replace the helicopter? But in this scenario, it would not be as easily replaceable and that put a damper on the idea.
I think that concludes me pursuing the idea.
In a related article from Naval News
ReplyDelete"US Navy Destroyer Launches Four SM-6 Missiles Against Two SRBMs In Latest MDA Test
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the U.S. Navy, conducted Flight Test Aegis Weapon System 33 in the broad ocean area northwest of Hawaii, July 24.
The objective of FTM-33 was to intercept a raid of two Short Range Ballistic Missile targets with four Standard Missile-6 Dual II missiles.
Based on initial observations, one target was successfully intercepted. At this time, we cannot confirm the second target was destroyed.
FTM-33 was the most complex mission executed by MDA (a raid of two test targets and two SM-6 Dual II salvos consisting of four missiles). It was the third flight test of an Aegis BMD-equipped vessel using the SM-6 Dual II missile."
Now, this raises two immediate questions to me.
The first is about intercept probability. If downing one out of two incoming missiles in fair weather and optimal conditions (I assume this because it is the most complex test ever conducted and it would be strange to do that in bad conditions) is considered a success and warrants a press release, ships are not likely to last long in combat. Without getting into numbers, one would wish for a rather high intercept probability in order to put these ships in harms way. I'm also assuming that the incoming missile has a far higher hit probability since Burkes are big, non-ballistic and distinctly subsonic. Todays ships are complex and unarmoured. If the defense systems cannot be counted on to remove more than most incoming threats, a mission kill would occur on the first incoming salvo. Someone should read CNOs post on ships armor...
The second question is why this is the most complex testing ever conducted. Testing is important, not least in relation to the first question. Two incoming missiles sounds like the least complex action an enemy would perform. Test eight missiles, test simultaneous attacks from air, sea and land assets, test in bad weather and whatever else is likely to occur when enemies are around.
/IED