Does Formidable Class need CIWS?
-
Hi. I'd like to know what you guys think of the defence capabilities of RSS Formidable class against anti-ship missiles, specifically how come RSN seems to think they don't need CIWS such as Phalanx or Goalkeeper? Most western navies such as Royal Navy (from Falklands experience) and USN (from USS Stark incident) seem to require warships of similar or larger size to have at least 1 CIWS. The similar La Fayette-based Kang Ding has one Phalanx CIWS Block 1A. Even the much smaller Israeli Eliat SA'AR 5 class corvette has one Phalanx CIWS. Considering the price and prestige (as the most advanced/powerful warship in SE Asia), shouldn't they be better protected with one more line of defence, in case an anti-ship missile gets past the Asters and electronic countermeasures to hit the ship?
-
anyone watched national geographic last nite?
documentary on Sink ex where the canadian navy and airforce used various systems to try and sink their old warship.
phalnax, 76mm and 25 mm i think and sea sparow. gattling gun from the CF 18s. sank before the sub got a torp in it.
-
I saw it too. I wasn't surprised that it was the torpedo that sank the ship. Some of the weapons used, like CIWS and anti-air missile were meant for much smaller targets.
-
eh? i thought the sub didnt even got a chance to launch their torp?
in fact it was the huron's on 76mm that sank it ironically as it got transplanted to another ship.
it was an interesting tryout as they had to use manual override as the phalnax radar had trouble engaging the big target...
-
Oops, sorry, pai say. I'm currently living in US - watched it on Nat Geo 3 months ago and my memory failed (getting old). You're right, the Huron's sister ship delivered the final blow.
-
One additional defensive system is not one too many. We only have 6 ships and getting clobbered for the lack of adequate defenses is one lost too many.
-
Originally posted by OldBird69:
Hi. I'd like to know what you guys think of the defence capabilities of RSS Formidable class against anti-ship missiles, specifically how come RSN seems to think they don't need CIWS such as Phalanx or Goalkeeper? Most western navies such as Royal Navy (from Falklands experience) and USN (from USS Stark incident) seem to require warships of similar or larger size to have at least 1 CIWS. The similar La Fayette-based Kang Ding has one Phalanx CIWS Block 1A. Even the much smaller Israeli Eliat SA'AR 5 class corvette has one Phalanx CIWS. Considering the price and prestige (as the most advanced/powerful warship in SE Asia), shouldn't they be better protected with one more line of defence, in case an anti-ship missile gets past the Asters and electronic countermeasures to hit the ship?
Does the RSN really think they don't need a CIWS or have they moved on to a CIGS instead?
As supersonic anti-ships missiles proliferate and the incoming threat gets faster, the need to engage and destroy the AShM further away grows. This is because these missiles are so big and fast that even if you kill the AShM, IF the "kill" is not done at a sufficient standoff distance, the debris from the missile parts are likely to cause significant collateral damage to the target.
Because of this, the 20mm Phalanx is starting to be viewed as being inadequate in range and the 30mm Goalkeeper is starting to be viewed as approaching borderline adequate. The trend among new build vessels is to move away from small calibre CIWS to either
i) Short range anti-missile missile such as RAM or (since we're talking about CIWS) ...
ii) medium calibre "Close In Gun System" or CIGS such as the Bofors 57mm/70 Mk3 (or Mk 110 in the USN) or the wide spread Oto Melera 76mm/62 Super Rapid.
Which means to say the preference is now for either Missiles or medium calibre CIGS as a final layer of defence against AShM. So it may be fair to say that perhaps the RSN is depending on their Super Rapid 76 to perform the role of final shootdown of AShM
-
Isn't the CIWS meant to be a last-ditch thing anyway?
Oh don't worry.....we shall see results. Just wait a bit!
FYI, several of our PVs and APVs have traded their mistral for 20mm Typhoon. From what I know, it was a trial. I believe at least 1 LST as well. It should become standard weapon soon.
-
defence capabilities of RSS Formidable class against anti-ship missiles, is mainly using NGDS decoy system. It is effective to handle up to 8 missiles from different directions . Economic/performance is the reason for its choice .
It also can have anti torpedo decoy.
-
E aster 15/30 is a anti-missile missile system
-
I think that a CIWS ( especially gun based ) is absolutely necessary as the last ditch measure.
Aster 15 can engage a ASMs up to max of 15 km away. If it misses , then I dont think the 76 mm will be up to the task to engage sea skimming ShShMs. It is designed mainly as a general purpose gun with limited capability against ShShMs.
30 mm Typhoon may not be adequate. Need new generation ( read programmable & prox ammo ) gun ammo & completely autonomous operation against ASMs. Typhoon design mainly to engage surface targets and perhaps against aircraft targets.
The Phalanx cud not engage the target in SINKEX as it is configured to automatically engage high speed targets - the target in this case was not even moving . However, no problem to engage manually using the optics.
An advantage with gun CIWS is that you can also engage small water craft, air to surface munitions ( eg AGM 65s, glide bombs & even arty shells ) , RPVs etc cost effectively.
-
Almost every anti-missile defence is another missle system or bigger guns. Our boat got space or not?
-
76mm gun is designed to be anti missile last ditch. That's the reason it's a Super Rapid version churning out 2 rounds a second.
In other news, targetting, targetting, targetting. If you cant find the target, dont talk about how big the missile is.
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
If it misses , then I dont think the 76 mm will be up to the task to engage sea skimming ShShMs. It is designed mainly as a general purpose gun with limited capability against ShShMs.
Mate, sorry to contradict you but the Super Rapid 76/62 is designed to engage sea skimming AShMs as a primary capability.
"OTO-Melara estimates that, combined with the Dardo FCS, the SR can begin engaging attacking missiles at about 6,600 yards (6,000 m), with the first rounds arriving on target at 6,000 yards (5,500 m). With these ranges, a single gun can deal with up to four subsonic sea-skimmer missiles, arriving simultaneously on courses 90 degrees apart, before any reaches 1,100 yards (1,000 m)."
Handling 4 incoming missiles simultaneously is hardly "limited capability ...
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
I think that a CIWS ( especially gun based ) is absolutely necessary as the last ditch measure.
Aster 15 can engage a ASMs up to max of 15 km away. If it misses , then I dont think the 76 mm will be up to the task to engage sea skimming ShShMs. It is designed mainly as a general purpose gun with limited capability against ShShMs.
30 mm Typhoon may not be adequate. Need new generation ( read programmable & prox ammo ) gun ammo & completely autonomous operation against ASMs. Typhoon design mainly to engage surface targets and perhaps against aircraft targets.
The Phalanx cud not engage the target in SINKEX as it is configured to automatically engage high speed targets - the target in this case was not even moving . However, no problem to engage manually using the optics.
An advantage with gun CIWS is that you can also engage small water craft, air to surface munitions ( eg AGM 65s, glide bombs & even arty shells ) , RPVs etc cost effectively.
The Phalanx on a USN ship once notoriously opened fire on the USS New Jersey causing casualties.And the 76mm is a AA gun. It is actually more effective against air targets than surface targets from first-hand accounts. This gun handles 2 main types of rounds, the MOM and SAPOM round, the former being a flak type and the latter being armour-piercing type.
And always overlooked, understandably, the .5MG is also a last-ditch weapon against air targets.
So an overview of missile defence includes, AMM (anti-missile missile), chaff, 76mm, 20mm, 0.5". In my opinion it should be enough to ward off most missile attacks.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
The Phalanx on a USN ship once notoriously opened fire on the USS New Jersey causing casualties.And the 76mm is a AA gun. It is actually more effective against air targets than surface targets from first-hand accounts. This gun handles 2 main types of rounds, the MOM and SAPOM round, the former being a flak type and the latter being armour-piercing type.
And always overlooked, understandably, the .5MG is also a last-ditch weapon against air targets.
So an overview of missile defence includes, AMM (anti-missile missile), chaff, 76mm, 20mm, 0.5". In my opinion it should be enough to ward off most missile attacks.
well, i doubt .5mg can be really counted as AA weapon lar... at least not anti-missile.... dont think it can engage fast enough to ht the missile.. unless it is a prop plane or smth..or a kite...
think that .5mg may be called more of as a gen purpose gun for shooting at random stuff that tries to kill you (smth like a small knife lar), but i wont trust a .5mg to stop the missile...
-
The good ol R2D2 had 2 modes on the older class of USN ships IIRC. Semi-Auto and Auto. Semi-Auto will require the operator to assign the track to the R2D2, and clear it to fire when in range.
The Auto... shoots anything that flies. Helo better be on deck when that happens...
If I'm not wrong, if there are missiles inbound, every gun will be tracking them. Doesn't matter if they are 76mms, or phalanx. Killing / Spoofing the missile is top priority.
-
I'm no expert on ship defenses. I think if (1) Asters fail to intercept the incoming missile and then (2) decoy/ECM fail to fool the missile also (OK, chances of this very small but if you have multiple missiles targeting the ship, it is mathematically possible) - I presume the missile is now very close, will the 76mm Oto Melara gun firing at 2 rounds per sec and the radar system (tracking the missile) and the computer system operating the gun be good enough to hit the missile?
I hope RSN has another (secret) layer of defense for these ships they are not telling us.
-
Originally posted by OldBird69:
I'm no expert on ship defenses. I think if (1) Asters fail to intercept the incoming missile and then (2) decoy/ECM fail to fool the missile also (OK, chances of this very small but if you have multiple missiles targeting the ship, it is mathematically possible) - I presume the missile is now very close, will the 76mm Oto Melara gun firing at 2 rounds per sec and the radar system (tracking the missile) and the computer system operating the gun be good enough to hit the missile?
I hope RSN has another (secret) layer of defense for these ships they are not telling us.
Sigh .... do you have any valid reason to think that the Oto Melara 76/60, with the FCS, will not be good enough to hit an incoming missile?
You must have missed the bit posted by 16/f that the MOM (and the newer PF-OM) shells are designed to engage sea skimming missiles. Go read about it, they are like shotgun shells with tungsten pellets.
You must have also missed the bit I posted about Oto Melara's test of the SR 76 against 4 incoming missiles from 6,000m. None of them got any closer than 1,000m ... which is a far sight better than the 200-300m of the Phalanx (and the main reason why the phalanx is deemed inadequate).
Still not good enough? Why?
Are you thinking that a ship's CO is gonna wait until the absolute last minute to engage with the SR76? He certainly won't wait to see if the decoys are working ... He'd fire the ASTER, fire the NGDS (when appropriate) and if the missile is still up at 6,000m hit it with the 76/60.
I seriously doubt he's going to go ... "I just fired the decoys, lets wait and see" ... "Ooooh it's coming real close, but let's wait and see" .... "OH CB! The decoys are not working! Guns! Engage Missile! 1,000m!" ... Boom?
In case you still think that the Oto Melara 76 was not designed primarily as an Anti-Missile gun, go read about the DART Strales program which is just now coming operational.
So seriously ... do you have a valid reasons for your counter points or is it just unsubstantiated arguments for argument's sake?
-
Originally posted by OldBird69:
I'm no expert on ship defenses. I think if (1) Asters fail to intercept the incoming missile and then (2) decoy/ECM fail to fool the missile also (OK, chances of this very small but if you have multiple missiles targeting the ship, it is mathematically possible) - I presume the missile is now very close, will the 76mm Oto Melara gun firing at 2 rounds per sec and the radar system (tracking the missile) and the computer system operating the gun be good enough to hit the missile?
I hope RSN has another (secret) layer of defense for these ships they are not telling us.
the 76mm OTo Melara gun - can fire many types of rounds - the anti air rounds - it act be more like shotgun or claymore - when it is program to explode send a wall of leads at the missile. With the missile travelling at high speed, even if contact with one of the fragment will cause it to spin out of control.
Thus 1 rounds is enough to put up a pretty solid wall which will take out any missile.
It is like clay pigeon shooting is a good example of this works.
-
the Typhoons on the APVs and PVs are probably meant for anti-surface duties....
They can knock-out sucide boats at close range.
-
kotay, I see your point and 16/f''s. I'll take your words for it. Thanks.
I do have one more question - can the 76mm Oto Melara gun cover targets to the back of the ship? It seems to me it has a large blind spot, blocked by the bridge?
-
Before this goes further:
the ship can turn.
-
Originally posted by CM06:
Before this goes further:
the ship can turn.
Thats gonna be sgforums/militarynuts, quote of the month!
-
Originally posted by spencer99:
the Typhoons on the APVs and PVs are probably meant for anti-surface duties....
They can knock-out sucide boats at close range.
No.....for AA. Anti-surface as a secondary function.Anyway......yes, the ship can turn. The frigates' turning ability is further enhanced by bow-thrusters.
Anyway, old-bird may be right for all we know. Apparently the barrel droops whenever the mechanisms inside move and that's gotta affect accuracy to a certain extent. This will certainly be more serious if the target is far away.