Why is CIWS considered insufficient to defend warships?
>>29355473
It's just considered very very last ditch after everything else.
>>29355473
It just isn't as accurate or as consistent at destroying missiles as would be ideal for a system designed to defend hundreds of people.
>>29355473
As for why? I don't know. Perhaps the technology on most CIWSs are/is old. Hitting something like a supersonic missile is hard for a gun to do. We might see more powerful lasers take its place.
>>29355525
arent the shells super sonic too?
>>29355565
They are going up against mach 2 missiles and the guns have a range up to about 1km
And that's in clear weather
At foul sea state you're fugged
>>29355694
1km seems pretty shitty, and for missiles that just move in a straight line, isnt it just a simple matter of calculating its expected position and then putting some proximity detonating shells in that location at the correct time?
>>29355473
If you need to use CIWS - you are getting shot at, if you are getting shot at - your tactics either suck or you already lost.
>>29355815
>isnt it just a simple matter of calculating its expected position and then putting some proximity detonating shells in that location at the correct time?
>I have no factual engineering knowledge on the topic of guidance and fire solution systems, but isn't it simple to achieve all these things I don't have a clue about?
>>29356514
>basic math is hard
>>29356567
>I still don't have a clue about the thing I'm talking about, but I'll keep talking anyway!
of course it's simple math if all you can do is look at a given problem with the mind of a fucking simpleton
>>29356567
>complex math is easy
>>29356370
That's a bit narrow minded
>>29356615
>>29356617
>braindead milfags think that basic math is borderline wizardry
>lashing out because of your own retardation
>>29355694
>They are going up against mach 2 missiles and the guns have a range up to about 1km
The Phalanx CIWS has a effective firing range of 3.5 km. The much weaker Meroka CIWS has a effective firing range of 1.5 to 2 km. The Rheinmetall GDM-008 has a effective firing range of 3.5 km. The AK-630 has a paper effective firing range of 4 km. I do not believe that last number because the muzzle velocity is a good 200 m less then the Phalanx that has a shorter listed effective firing range...
The point is that I know of no CIWS system that is that ineffective.
>>29356514
It really isn't hard with modern computers & electronic
>>29356932
AK 630 shoots a shell that's about 4 times heavier. It comes out slower but loses less velocity over distance.
FWIW, the US navy puts very little faith in gun based CIWS. They are replacing Phalanx with rolling airframe missile as fast as the missile and launchers can be cranked out.
RIM-116 has about 3 times as much effective range as Phalanx. The missile is also fire and forget so the launcher doesn't have to keep observing the ASHM, it just moves to the next target and fires. If the first missile missed, it comes back and shoots another one.
>>29356370
if you are not getting shot at either your opponent has no ability to shoot at you or you somehow managed to destroy them all before they could figure out where you were and fire their own missiles...
>>29357394
>it comes back and shoots another one.
By which time the missile has probably already impacted
>>29358077
The launcher isn't dumb. It knows how fast the ASHM is going and how much time it has to shoot another interceptor at it.
Ripple fire from the start is wasteful, observing the interceptor until it hits wastes the "fire and forget" capability of the RIM-116.
>>29356658
>he still doesn't get the point
>>29357394
>FWIW, the US navy puts very little faith in gun based CIWS.
It always feels to me like they never put enough of them on things.
Shouldnt they be cramming them everywhere there is space on the deck and having them work together to box in a missile so even if it maneuvers it still gets hit?
>>29359920
The Phalanx system was built as a quick "bolt-on" to ships that weren't originally built with any CIWS at all. It's always been more of a stop gap than a real solution to anti-ship missiles. The issues are two fold.
1. It's not that likely to hit a missile.
2. Even if it does shoot down the missile, the range will be so close that your ship is likely to get hit by all the debris and a flaming cloud of rocket fuel anyways
>>29356932
>Meroka CIWS
Huh, haven't heard of this before
>12 Oerlikon 20mm cannons arranged in 6x2
we volley gun nao
The videos I've seen of CIWS tests make me pretty confident they can stop one missile under somewhat ideal circumstances, but they don't have enough ammo and they aren't fast enough to stop spam.
>>29355473
I want to fuck dat boat.
Lets say you are onna boat with a Phalanx CIWS. Your captain has deemed it sufficient to defend against missiles. The ship is tasked to shadow an Oscar II sub when suddenly it fired a Granit towards your ship.
The moment the supersonic schoolbus sized 7 ton missile that is titanium armored to protect itself from small projectiles like CIWS and shrapnel from missiles gets in range of the CIWS it will have enough momentum that it will still hit your ship no matter what you do or its debris will pepper the ship in the off chance that it gets destroyed by bird strike.
Knowing this, what is the best thing to do? You stay put. Soviet missiles miss, its a dud.
Thanks for pic OP
>>29361267
>Knowing this, what's the best thing to do?
Kill it immediately with an SM-2/6 shot, toss an ESSM shot if it survives, scaled up as the threat priority demands.
>>29355473
Supersonic missiles, limited engagement range, limited rate of fire. The number of bullets that actually can be fired in the limited engagement time is very low due to the high speed of the missile. Let's say the range is 3km, a missile traveling at 600mph would have a significantly higher change of being destroyed than one going 2000mph, simply because more bullets could be fired at the 600mph one, due to it taking longer to travel the 3km range.
tl;dr; too few bullets reduces hit probability
>>29355473
>1000 rounds that can be empty under 10 sec and takes 30 min to reload is going to save you
oh ok
>>29361917
>That image.
Fucking saved, my sides are relativistic. Past Jupiter and still chuggin'.
>>29355815
the trouble is missiles don't just move in a straight line
modern anti-ship missiles use see skimming, popping up for the final approach, and other techniques to defeat countermissile systems
>>29361896
Too bad the captain has already deemed CIWS enough as a defence.
>>29360517
Phalanx is almost an afterthought on US navy ships. The system isn't heavy, and is easily installed.
It's something you put on after the Radar, various sensors, helicopter, and missiles are already in place. And if you have a couple dozen tons of acceptable top-weight left, use it for a Phalanx.
It's always preferable to have an SM-2 intercept the threat 100 miles out, than gamble on CIWS taking it out less than 2 miles out.
Just add more CIWS
>>29362285
BSG may haven gotten weirdly social/political, but damn did they make good age of sail level space battles.
>>29356658
As an engineering student it doesn't stay simple for long....
you need to be able to plot the missiles movement.
depending on the speed and distance that could include anything from basic dynamics, the effects of the rotation of the earth, classical mechanic and or newtonian, to the change in air pressure and velocity shaking the missile, to the change in humity due to cloudy weather, and the list could go on for natural effects. Then there is human effects like for instance is the ship changing course, is the missile a cheap Chinese piece of shit and the guidance system has loose controlling equations that make it bounce, wobble and rotate during its flight?
In the end engineering is about neglectfulness. Do you want an accurate gun that needs a warehouse sized computer to calculate a 1000 plus variables and maybe has a 50% chance of hitting a target? Or do you want to load a ship do with a warehouse full of guns to maybe get 45% chance to hit? either way if your ship is under fire, you fucked up and the ciws system isn't likely to help.
>>29355473
The big problem with CIWS is that they all cost less than the missiles they are designed to shoot down. It's kind of a catch 22.
>>29358579
what if theres no more time to fire another interceptor at it and the last one it fires at it misses?
>>29362183
remember when they used to put 100+ AA guns on battleships?
>>29361917
that sounds like a pretty low hit probability per round. Maybe they should make it more accurate.
>>29364710
less? how is that a problem
>>29355473
>file deleted
