Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWSs) -

[gambit]

In my opinion this is only a feel good system and utter waste of money. Could easy be distracted by firring hundreds of cheap rockets preceded by the actual hunter.

Right...That mean the US, Russia and China are wasting our money on this type of weapon systems. Pakistan is wise not to take this course.

 

[Parashuram1]

Right...That mean the US, Russia and China are wasting our money on this type of weapon systems. Pakistan is wise not to take this course.

It's okay.. you get used to such here very soon.

 

[Penguin]

Phalanx CIWS gunner is good only for short range in protecting incoming Anti-Missiles or air defence. It would be great news if we receive (4) Type 054 Frigates including type 730 CIWS as well.


Do we have greater-ranges RAM launcher (Missile-CIWS) in Pakistan Navy ?

Oliver Hazard Peery class frigate transferred from US (FFG-8 McInerney-Aug 2010), not sure if this will include RAM launcher?

Gun-based CIWS can defend out to varying ranges, depending on the gun system. Effective ranges against missiles:
Oto Melara 76mm Super Rapid (Strales/Davide/Dart) - out to 5 km
OTOBreda claims the twin Fast Forty (PFHE ammo) can kill a supersonic missile at ranges up to 3 km
Thales 30mm Goallkeeper: up to 2km
20mm Phalanx: up to 1.5 km

PN does not currently operate RAM. It does operate the 18km LY-60 SAM (a Sea Sparrow / Aspide like missile) and 15km HQ-7/FM-90 (a Crotale like missile)

The OHP class frigate McInerney does carry Phalanx but does not carry RAM or any other SAM at this time (except possibly handheld Stinger MANPADS). It could be easily fitted with RAM or equivalent (chinese) system)

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Its a briliant weapon system

Its response and performance is great

As for confusing lol I doubt it , no one fires 1000 missiles at one target ... in real battle

At any given time a real battle unit at sea can launch artilery every few min / 30 -50 second

And most of the damage is done by these shells, the missiles can be a powerful Right handed punch!! But if you can constantly , dodge the bullet and continue to hit back even a small ship can take out a much larger ship

And not only missiles fired from boats it can also take out airplanes that fly low to target the ship and even the missiles from the planes

 

[TaimiKhan]

Thank you, Penguin.

According to the information, our F-22 Frigates will include 730 type CIWS? Will it be upgrades? I couldn't find pictures.

See more description (post#105)


EDIT: Is this CIWS @ 0:20?

YouTube - Report: F22 P Frigate

Nops, that is the main turreted gun and behind it are the AShM launchers and many of the pictures in this video aren't of F-22P.

F-22P already has 2 Type-730B CIWS installed, the FM-90 SAM also has limited ability to engage AShM, and the turret gun can also engage incoming missiles, so the F-22Ps also has multiple defending weapon systems, beside the normal counter measures.

Here is the picture of the "A" variant of Type-730 CIWS, based on the Dutch GoalKeeper CIWS



And here is the B variant on the F-22P frigate and one behind it, the major difference being the radar and electro optical device being shared by both the guns, as in A variant the gun had its own radar and optical device, as seen in the above picture.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

The main usage of CIWs is well to pick up low flying missiles that are not detected with radars, or that could be intercepted with missile, in that case a CIWs system comes in play which can send in barrage of shells (High frequency) that just pretty much destroys the missiles

This kind of system can be the difference between life or death

Its fully automated , so the system is great for air defence/missile defence at close range

 

[news]

My pictures are 730 CIWS firing

This guy above seems to have been equipped with a 730 CIWS

 

[nightcrawler]

Actual gunning down of a missile
Kashtan CIWS

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Nops, that is the main turreted gun and behind it are the AShM launchers and many of the pictures in this video aren't of F-22P.

F-22P already has 2 Type-730B CIWS installed, the FM-90 SAM also has limited ability to engage AShM, and the turret gun can also engage incoming missiles, so the F-22Ps also has multiple defending weapon systems, beside the normal counter measures.

Here is the picture of the "A" variant of Type-730 CIWS, based on the Dutch GoalKeeper CIWS



And here is the B variant on the F-22P frigate and one behind it, the major difference being the radar and electro optical device being shared by both the guns, as in A variant the gun had its own radar and optical device, as seen in the above picture.

Would'nt two independant fire control systems be better instead of the one in the "Improved" single director for two weapons unit version? In a crunch situation, missiles could be coming from more than one direction at the same time - independant fire control systems would ensure multi-target acquisition and subsequent engagment. This seems to be a weakness of the system!!!

 

[Penguin]

Would'nt two independant fire control systems be better instead of the one in the "Improved" single director for two weapons unit version? In a crunch situation, missiles could be coming from more than one direction at the same time - independant fire control systems would ensure multi-target acquisition and subsequent engagment. This seems to be a weakness of the system!!!

Thios system gives a better protection arc than a single Type 730 ion the rear, at less than the price of 2x Type 730, while allowing for engagement of simultaneous targets from 2 directions (which is something a single Type 730 can't do). 2 Type 730 would be better, but far more expensive. This is a good compromise.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

Thios system gives a better protection arc than a single Type 730 ion the rear, at less than the price of 2x Type 730, while allowing for engagement of simultaneous targets from 2 directions (which is something a single Type 730 can't do). 2 Type 730 would be better, but far more expensive. This is a good compromise.

I understand your point of view and I totally agree with you on the greater coverage from two systems. However the fact remain that the gun unit might be two giving a greater arc of fire but effectively, only one can be used at a time!

Spending US$ 200m and than short changing on the "Last ditch weapon" is kind of odd.

 

[Penguin]

I understand your point of view and I totally agree with you on the greater coverage from two systems. However the fact remain that the gun unit might be two giving a greater arc of fire but effectively, only one can be used at a time!

Spending US$ 200m and than short changing on the "Last ditch weapon" is kind of odd.

It simply is not true that one can be used at a time: you have a radar as well as an elop-device for fire control. Hence, one gun could be aimed in one direction at one target using the EO-director to control te engagement and the other gun could be aimed in another direction at a second target using the radar-director to control that engagement. Photo's above clearly show the radar-director and the EO-director can and do move independently of one another.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

It simply is not true that one can be used at a time: you have a radar as well as an elop-device for fire control. Hence, one gun could be aimed in one direction at one target using the EO-director to control te engagement and the other gun could be aimed in another direction at a second target using the radar-director to control that engagement. Photo's above clearly show the radar-director and the EO-director can and do move independently of one another.

I am sure you are basing your statement on some citable reference so it must be accurate.

My only observation would be that the electro-optical system would drastically reduce the relative detection and engagement ranges, if used as the primary acquisition and targeting system

 

[mughaljee]

So,
what is the ending point.
are we getting this stuff or not?

 

[Penguin]

I am sure you are basing your statement on some citable reference so it must be accurate.

My only observation would be that the electro-optical system would drastically reduce the relative detection and engagement ranges, if used as the primary acquisition and targeting system

IMHO only minorly so. There is a common search/track radar over the forward part of the hangar as well, in case you hadn't noticed. Targets are handed off to either the radar-director and/or the EO-director to guide the actual engagement. This is not any different from how the Type 730 on PLAN ships works (although there the search/track radar is places in a small protective dome, which is absent on the F22P).

If (and that's a big IF) the EO-director is shorter ranged than the radar-director, this problem can to an extent be addressed by handing-off from the search/track radar to the EO-director later than would be the case with the radar-director. And to some extent any range difference between radar-director and EO-director is irrelevant: it makes no sense to hand-off a target from the search/track radar to the longer ranged radar-director at much (2x, 3x) more than the effective range of the guns.

Besides, the capabilities of modern FLIR and TI devices shouldn't be underestimated (FLIR was added to e.g. Phalanx block 1B PSuM for good reasons!), they can have a range of 15km easily (Thales Mirador can track a target the size of a fighter aircraft at 25km, for example. Missiles are obviously smaller but still current EO-devices can track way beyond the effective range of the 30mm gatling gun). Laser range finders can work out to 20km or so.