jwm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (James Wiley Mills Jr.) (01/24/89)
In Henry Spencer's Reply to "ARE CARRIERS OBSOLETE ", Mr. Spencer writes"
Most tests put CIWS close to the waterline...." First CIWS is installed on
ships of the line tenders and support ships. All these mounts must undergo
at least one official inspection each year (with live firings at a towed
target.) On several classes of ships the mounts are not close to the
waterline.. ie. BB-62 class, DDG-51 class(proposed) CG-47 class, FFG-7
class all have their mounts on the superstructure from 35 to 100 feet above
the waterline. Seems to me that the Navy wouldn't keep putting the mounts
so far above the water if they we not effective.
Second The average burst lenght is only 300 to 400 rounds giving each mount
a best case capbility to counter up to 10 missiles. Since CIWS is CLOSE in
weapons system it will not have time to empty it's ammo drum before impact
if it is unable to destroy incoming missiles...
Jim Mills NCSUhenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (01/26/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > In Henry Spencer's Reply to "ARE CARRIERS OBSOLETE ", Mr. Spencer writes" > Most tests put CIWS close to the waterline...." First CIWS is installed on > ships of the line tenders and support ships. All these mounts must undergo > at least one official inspection each year (with live firings at a towed > target.) On several classes of ships the mounts are not close to the > waterline... Sigh, you've misinterpreted my comments somewhat. Phalanx is generally mounted high on ships, as you indicate, but all the *realistic* testing -- against realistic sea-skimming targets, mind you, not set-piece demos at significant altitude -- was done with mounts just above the waterline. The importance of this is that the radar/computer system has never been given a thorough test in the situation that would be typical in real combat, looking *down* on a low-flying missile. Anyone can hit a missile silhouetted against the sky. > ... Seems to me that the Navy wouldn't keep putting the mounts > so far above the water if they we not effective. It says in the book that a high-mounted Phalanx will work, so the ships are designed on that assumption. We all know that the book is always right, don't we? > Second The average burst lenght is only 300 to 400 rounds giving each mount > a best case capbility to counter up to 10 missiles. Since CIWS is CLOSE in > weapons system it will not have time to empty it's ammo drum before impact > if it is unable to destroy incoming missiles... If it's got a single target, clearly it won't empty its magazines against it, win or lose. Against a stream of targets - they will *not* come one at a time in a real war -- the magazine will start looking awfully small very quickly. I would also note that the British found out the hard way in the Falklands that Sea Wolf's control system tended to freeze up when presented with multiple simultaneous targets. This was a system that had supposedly been tested quite thoroughly... by peacetime standards. How often is Phalanx tested against multiple targets? Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) (01/26/89)
From: ssc-vax!wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) > Second The average burst lenght is only 300 to 400 rounds giving each mount > a best case capbility to counter up to 10 missiles. Since CIWS is CLOSE in > weapons system it will not have time to empty it's ammo drum before impact > if it is unable to destroy incoming missiles... Just as a point of reference on CIWS, _FLYING_ magazine had an article by one of the civilian pilots who tows targets for the Navy. His experience is that the radio message "cleared to fire" was always immediately followed by the jerk of the target being shredded. CIWS, at least, appears to work... Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja)