Does Formidable Class need CIWS?
-
Originally posted by kotay:
First up, this thread is about "Does Formidable need CIWS". For this, there are 2 rather simple answers -
a) Yes, it needs one.
b) No, it does not need one.
It is not about what CIWS is the best. Did I or anyone in this thread mention that CIGS is superior to Close in Missile Systems (CIMS) like SEA-RAM? Since you cannot be bothered to read other people's post, I'll summarise my postings in this thread for you.
i) Traditional small calibre CIWS, like Phalanx, are fast becoming ineffective against modern AShM threats.
ii) The current trend for inner-layer final protection against missiles is starting to tend towards medium calibre CIGS or Missile systems (which I will hereafter call Close in Missile Systems or CIMS) ;)
iii) The Oto Melera 76SR mounted by the Formidables is actually a very effective CIGS.
iv) As such, the Formidable does not need to mount a CIWS as it already has one in the form of the 76SR CIGS.
If you wish to start your own argument that a CIMS is the best solution than kindly start your own thread.
If you wish to question whether the Oto Melara 76/62 is an effective CIGS, as advertised, than I'll be more than happy to discuss this further since it will relate directly to the question of "Does Formidable need CIWS".
So now to a point by point answer to your above diatribe
How laughable, name me a single major navy power in the world that ever adopted your so called CIGS to replace any gun CIWS. Yet you call it a future trend but using now mostly obsolete CLOS guided eyeless, brainless gun shell??!
Lol, majority people around the world still call Kashtan still a CIWS even it features Anti-air missile. The reality is people just using more capable CIWS to replace earlier generation CIWS. But what? Not follow your nonsense CIGS a replacement of gun CIWS then not related to the topic?!
Simple reply will be “What a BS.”
-
Originally posted by Joe Black:
ok, according to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt2a.htm, Flight IIA starts from DDG 79 and the one in the photos is DDG 81.
Delete harpoon......wonder what replaces that.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
I honestly have no idea why you think the Strales DART has a range of only 5km. The actual operational parameter is not open domain but I’ve read that the capability extends to as far as 10km.
Sorry guys, somebody kept too many craps in asingle post, I have to boil down to anwser them otherwise viewers will totally lost yet let his high DB noise in prevail"I quote what I have said" Because of this, the Strales Dart so far only managed to keep the dart round in line of sight for a maximum 5kms, repeatability and real field performance is somewhat questionable." apparantly I refer to OTO so far only can keep the Dart round following the guidance beam around 5 +kms. so you can understand the range is only 5kms?!
-
And exactly how far can a CIWS shoot? Maximum effective range, not maximum range please.
I believe the 25mm Typhoon RSN uses has a max effective range of 3+km.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
Of course we have no combat record to prove the effectiveness of the Strales DART, that’s because it’s in the operational test phase. But then again, is there any real field or combat review for the SEA-RAM?
SEA-RAM has a tracked record of intercepting many types of AshCM simulating rounds including sopersonic ones. the plain fact is it's now adopted and going to be adopted by all major western navies as a standard CIWS, yet you want to equal it to the Dart round which till now so far only managed to keep the pace with a guidance beam in a matter of "5kms". nice mindset. but here do got capable people can fully understand what a crap logic behind the comparisonToday again time is up. will catch if got another integrated time tomorrow. too many craps, I even not anwsering fully till page 3
-
Originally posted by kotay:
You sound like you are under some kind of impression that AAMs and SAMs boost continuously up till their max range. If you thought so, you couldn’t be further from the truth. All solid propellant Missiles boost for only the first few seconds of their flight profile. The larger the missile, the longer it will boost for, but invariably, by mid-phase, almost all of them are unpowered missiles. This is why they all have a variable range engagement envelope that is highly dependant on their launch altitude, launch speed since these 2 factors impart more energy to missile then the booster alone can.
SEA-RAM is based on the rocket motor and body of the AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM. The SEA-RAM missile is also about 2.8m long. Do you have any idea what the rocket motor burn time of a ~2.8m AIM-9 is? Let me clue you in … 2.2 seconds.
What this boils down to is that the SEA-RAM, at about 2,000m, becomes an unpowered missile, like the Strales DART. Even worse, it actually has a a lower velocity at the 2km mark compared to the Strales DART, which implies it actually has a lower energy state compared to the Strales DART. The SEA-RAM has one saving grace, it has bigger control surfaces which gives it a better angle of turn rate than the DART.
one final reply today, keep it short: I don't know? obviously u don't know I talked this with YF more than a years ago:
http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1237&st=30
If you fully understand how a air drag can bring down the speed in supersonic region in my last several replies, the biggest difference between a powered and unpowered round is its best energy state appears totally different, a best energy state later is much more in advantage than the one appears at the beginning because interception always happening near terminal stage, 2 kms can make the whole wolrd different, considering the SEA-RAm's max intercetion range is up to 10kms. effect range will be much shorter than max range. that's why YF then think AIM-9X can be effect near BVR, but actual kills all happen very shortly, for AIM-9X, 2-3kms, real WVR.
Talk later
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
The statement of a mach 3 unpowered projectile near sea level only lost 6% of its initial speed over 5kms really showcase you have no clue about aerodynamics yet want to talk like expert.
Air drag coefficient Cx considered almost constant when the projectile flies at low speed ( generally below 250m/s), and increases near exponentially along with the increase of speed which is near or over speed of the sound.
http://www.answers.com/topic/sonic-barrier?cat=technology
Sharp rise in aerodynamic drag that occurs as an aircraft approaches the speed of s
When the projectile’s speed is in the supersonic region. Because of the sharp rise in Cx, the projectile approaching sound speed will have to break sound barrier. Actually any unpowered supersonic projectile lost speed exponentially faster during its flight in sound. At sea level the speed of sound is about 750supersonic region than it does in low speed region. Remember, it lost speed exponentially, 6% is not a exponential result considering the dart round already flied 5kms.
Obviously your lack of knowledge leads to your totally incompetent to talk something you really don’t understand.
So it’s totally unsurprised you don’t understand what I have quoted from OTO’s website: “the DART projectiles have correctly entered and followed the guidance beam manoeuvring with the required and expected accuracy beyond a range of 5 Km.”
Why it’s so difficult to achieve a Dart round to just entering the guidance beam in just 5+kms distance? Because the Dart round has already lost most of its speed during supersonic flight ( from m3 inital speed to sub-sonic), and when it's in sub-sonic, the sharp drop in air drag still allows it fly much longer, that’s why it still can achieve a 38kms range, but the sharp drop in speed doesn’t allow the round to have enough kinematic to perform manoeuvring that required to keep the round in the beam.
38, I think you're only giving half the story.Sharp rise in aerodynamic drag that occurs as an aircraft approaches the speed of sound.
What you are talking about, I believe is called transonic drag. It is the drag that increases exponentially in the transonic region. That is why it is hard for aircraft with a CAT 3 load to break the sound barrier.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/f86.htm
If you look at this graph, you will notice that the drag coefficient drops off after it passes the transonic region. It is only within this transonic region, will you have such a steep rise in drag coefficient.
So therefore, your statement:
Actually any unpowered supersonic projectile lost speed exponentially faster during its flight in supersonic region than it does in low speed region.
... is largely inaccurate. An object will encounter exponential slowdown ONLY WITHIN THE TRANSONIC region as shown in the graph above. That means staying out of Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.05.
If there is an exponential increase of drag throughout the supersonic region, aircraft will not be able to super-cruise because they will constantly require MORE POWER to maintain supersonic flight. Don't you think so?
So it seems to me, that you have misunderstood certain parts of the concept of Supersonic flight, with regards to a flying object's drag coefficient.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
38, I think you're only giving half the story.Sharp rise in aerodynamic drag that occurs as an aircraft approaches the speed of sound.
What you are talking about, I believe is called transonic drag. It is the drag that increases exponentially in the transonic region. That is why it is hard for aircraft with a CAT 3 load to break the sound barrier.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/f86.htm
If you look at this graph, you will notice that the drag coefficient drops off after it passes the transonic region. It is only within this transonic region, will you have such a steep rise in drag coefficient.
So therefore, your statement:
Actually any unpowered supersonic projectile lost speed exponentially faster during its flight in supersonic region than it does in low speed region.
... is largely inaccurate. An object will encounter exponential slowdown ONLY WITHIN THE TRANSONIC region as shown in the graph above. That means staying out of Mach 0.95 and Mach 1.05.
If there is an exponential increase of drag throughout the supersonic region, aircraft will not be able to super-cruise because they will constantly require MORE POWER to maintain supersonic flight. Don't you think so?
So it seems to me, that you have misunderstood certain parts of the concept of Supersonic flight, with regards to a flying object's drag coefficient.
Ah ... thanks for that answer. I had written a long winded shootdown of his BS but now I can instead concentrate on other answers.
Mucho gracias ...
-
Post by 38
Lol, another no clue!
Sea wolf is a beam rider similar to SM-1, the difference is it got eyes(seekers" and brains like any normal anti-air missile), totally different from the Dart round without any eyes or poor brain(no drain if u consider the RF reciever a non-AI unit)
Another fabulous own goal by 38 … Sea Wolf is like SM-1 you say? Totally different from DART rounds? And you say the difference is because Seawolf has got a seeker and brains – like any normal anti-air missile.
Mate, go have a read at MBDA’s Seawolf’s brochure. Let me quote some relevant bits for you …
“Once the surveillance radar has detected targets, the ship's Command System evaluates them and prioritises the threat. Designated high threat targets are then automatically passed to the SEAWOLF tracker sub-system, which then searches for and locks onto the priority target. The system automatically decides upon missile launch and guides the SEAWOLF missile to intercept using highly accurate Command to Line of Sight (CLOS) guidance.”
“the missile is controlled by its rear fins, giving it high manoeuvrability. The rear-facing command aerials mounted on the missile wings make it extremely resistant to electronic countermeasures.”
In other words, the shipboard fire control system provides the guidance instructions to the Seawolf Missile directly from the beams to it’s rear facing RF aerials … exactly like the Strales DART.
The SM-1, on the other hand, has it’s SARH seeker facing forward and calculates it’s own guidance from the reflected signals from the target
The litany of your own back tracks and own goals are so amazing I should really start keeping a list …
- AHEAD for 76SR w/o realizing the HE-MOM is just such a round
- Getting Centripetal Acceleration parameter wrong
- Claiming SEA-RAM missile boosts all the way to terminal phase
- Getting 3 point/beam guidance principle for CLOS wrong
- Saying that Seawolf is similar to SARH SM-1 and not CLOS DART.
-
Post by 38
When the projectile’s speed is in the supersonic region. Because of the sharp rise in Cx, the projectile approaching sound speed will have to break sound barrier. Actually any unpowered supersonic projectile lost speed exponentially faster during its flight in supersonic region than it does in low speed region. Remember, it lost speed exponentially, 6% is not a exponential result considering the dart round already flied 5kms.
Obviously your lack of knowledge leads to your totally incompetent to talk something you really don’t understand.
*snip*
Why it’s so difficult to achieve a Dart round to just entering the guidance beam in just 5+kms distance? Because the Dart round has already lost most of its speed during supersonic flight ( from m3 inital speed to sub-sonic)
So you are saying that the DART round has gone from 1,200m/s to less than 345m/s (speed of sound at sea level) within 5km due to the exponential effect of velocity on aerodynamic drag. Brilliant!
38, I sometimes think you really have no appreciation for maths … I mean you can certainly name some concepts but you don’t seem to have an appreciation of the equation details or it’s real world applications.
Firstly, stop trying to get all your answers from wikipedia or answers.com … if you want a better understanding of aerodynamics and supersonic flight, go read from NASA. I’ll even point you in the right direction … grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/short.html
Like I said, there are ballistics calculators online. But if you don’t believe them, then consider the following velocity degradation for a M829 APFSDS (figures provided by Paul Lakowski)
0000m = 1670m/s
1000m = 1610m/s
2000m = 1551m/s
3000m = 1491m/s
4000m = 1432m/s
This is a Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot round with similar Cd (Drag Coefficient) to the Strales DART with a significantly higher velocity – approximately twice the V2 value of the 1200m/s DART.
I don’t see the degradation to sub-sonic within 5km.
I'll let you in on something to make you happy. I left the range at the default of 2000m in the ballistics calculator, which is why I got 6%. I made a mistake ... Happy? The actual figure for a 1,200m/s DART is about 14% over 5km. Which is still about 1000m/s or roughly 3 times the speed of sound … hardly sub-sonic issit?
So I think I’ll just add one more to your growing list of own-goals …
- AHEAD for 76SR w/o realizing the HE-MOM is just such a round
- Getting Centripetal Acceleration parameter wrong
- Claiming SEA-RAM missile boosts all the way to terminal phase
- Getting 3 point/beam guidance principle for CLOS wrong
- Saying that Seawolf is similar to SARH SM-1 and not CLOS DART.
- Getting aerodynamic drag wrong.
Post by 38
Obviously your lack of knowledge leads to your totally incompetent to talk something you really don’t understand.
Careful what you say … your words seem to have a tendency to come back and haunt you. Remember ... glass house ... stones?
-
Post by 38
How laughable, name me a single major navy power in the world that ever adopted your so called CIGS to replace any gun CIWS. Yet you call it a future trend but using now mostly obsolete CLOS guided eyeless, brainless gun shell??!
Sigh … have you gone to look at the specs of the ship examples I listed previously?
USN is a major naval power right? Go look at the specs for the DD(X) or DDG-1000 or otherwise known as the Zumwalt.
Would you consider the navy of France, Italy to be reasonably Major? Go look at FREMM and Horizon. For that matter, the Italian navy has dropped the 40/70 and has been relying on the 76/62 for CIWS functions since quite a while back.
As I candidly said to Joe Black, it may not be indicative of a trend yet but it is certainly food for thought isn’t it?
Post by 38
Lol, majority people around the world still call Kashtan still a CIWS even it features Anti-air missile. The reality is people just using more capable CIWS to replace earlier generation CIWS. But what? Not follow your nonsense CIGS a replacement of gun CIWS then not related to the topic?!
Sigh .. clutching at straws now are we?
A couple of pages back, I explained that I will be deliberately using different acronyms for the various types of systems to avoid confusion in the discussion. At the end of the day, CIWS is a rather generic term referring to all inner layer defense systems. I carefully made a differentiation between CIGS and CIMS while retaining CIWS for the traditional phalanx analogues so that there is no confusion in what we are referring to.
Would you rather I say that “CIWS are starting to be replaced with newer CIWS” or “CIWS are starting to be replaced with CIGS/CIMS”.
-
Post by 38
SEA-RAM has a tracked record of intercepting many types of AshCM simulating rounds including sopersonic ones. the plain fact is it's now adopted and going to be adopted by all major western navies as a standard CIWS, yet you want to equal it to the Dart round which till now so far only managed to keep the pace with a guidance beam in a matter of "5kms". nice mindset. but here do got capable people can fully understand what a crap logic behind the comparison
I’ve asked for real field/combat experience and you give me controlled tests … comprehension problem?
As I’ve said before, again and again, I’m not claiming that DART is superior to RAM. Neither have I claimed that CLOS is superior to SARH/ARH. All I've said is that they are good enough to do the job they were designed for … seriously ... comprehension problem, again?
Please quote the post where I claim that DART is superior to RAM … or even in general that a CIGS solution is superior to a CIMS solution? This is what people will call a put up or shut up.
Your original disagreement started out as that the Oto Melara 76 is not capable of functioning as a CIWS. Failing to prove that, you have decided to change the topic to that RAM is better than DART … what a joke.
-
Originally posted by Joe Black:
Kotay, you've got a point there, but I believe FlightIIA still retains the Phalanx.See these photos:
I also believe that CIWS like Phalanx and SeaRAM continue to have their place onboard ships. SeaRAM continue to be maintained as the primary CIWS. The LM LCS International version for Israel has Phalanx as the primary CIWS well.
Joe, sorry if your answer gets lost amongst the crap slinging match above :)
I should have been more clear in my original statement ... Phalanx CIWS was removed from new build IIAs from DDG-85 onwards. The criteria, IINM, is the incorporation of ESSM into new builds starting with DDG-85. Add one missile layer, remove one gun layer?
That being said, some Post DDG-85 Flight IIAs have had a single Blk 1B CIWS added back in. I suspect this may have to do with deployment to the gulf, given that the IIAs now lack suitable counters against small terrorist boats ... and the Blk 1B fits the bill. My 2c.
WRT to the Israeli LCS, I have no clue. LCS-1 and LCS-2 do not specify Phalanx CIWS in their mix, although I hesistate to mention this since the LCS loadout is yet to be writ in stone.
I can only venture an opinion that perhaps the INS has a different mission profile or mindset. The INS is rather strange, they are about the only peeps, AFAIK, that mounts the Phalanx as an A gun.
-
Actually if you fired an APFSDS at maximum elevation for range it will go very, very far... somewhere in the range of 10-20 kilometers I think, if I remembered correctly. Though it will not be capable of penetrating armour at that range.
-
Post by 38
I quote what I have said" Because of this, the Strales Dart so far only managed to keep the dart round in line of sight for a maximum 5kms, repeatability and real field performance is somewhat questionable." apparantly I refer to OTO so far only can keep the Dart round following the guidance beam around 5 +kms. so you can understand the range is only 5kms?!
Hmm ... missed this one ... heh *rubs hands*
38, remember what you said previously ..
Post by 38
For those only believe the commercial brochure and be ignorant enough to think a simplest and most outdated CLOS guided round is as good as the AA missiles with active homing or SARH with much improved guidance, Sigh ... Akan Datang ... go read more basics.
For someone who criticised others for quoting and believing in brochures, you have certainly changed your tune haven't you?
So now, a brochure that you condemned as heretical is now, suddenly, good enough for you to quote from and stick by? :rolleyes:
Please see my previous source that states the 10km range for guided munitions. It'll give you a different way of reading the "5+" figure. This is what is known as collaborative evidence.
As I've said before, 5km is the standard engagement range. 10km is the maximum effective range with restricted engagement parameters.
So just for laughs, let's drag out that list again ...
- AHEAD for 76SR w/o realizing the HE-MOM is just such a round
- Getting Centripetal Acceleration parameter wrong
- Claiming SEA-RAM missile boosts all the way to terminal phase
- Getting 3 point/beam guidance principle for CLOS wrong
- Saying that Seawolf is similar to SARH SM-1 and not CLOS DART.
- Getting aerodynamic drag wrong.
- double standards with regards to quoting of brochures.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Actually if you fired an APFSDS at maximum elevation for range it will go very, very far... somewhere in the range of 10-20 kilometers I think, if I remembered correctly. Though it will not be capable of penetrating armour at that range.
Abrams firing an APFSDS at 55 degree elevation, achieved using a berm or incline, will achieve a theoretical max altitude of about 40km and a range about 110km
-
Originally posted by kotay:
Abrams firing an APFSDS at 55 degree elevation, achieved using a berm or incline, will achieve a theoretical max altitude of about 40km and a range about 110km
Woah...
-
Post by 38
How laughable, name me a single major navy power in the world that ever adopted your so called CIGS to replace any gun CIWS.
Found what I was looking for ... a 2004 press release from United Defense stated that the USN had selected the Mark 110 (Bofors 57/70 Mk. 3) ...
"as the Close-In Gun System (CIGS) for the baseline design of the new DD(X) Destroyer program . . . The function of the Mk 110 Naval Gun is to provide key ship self-protection and attack capabilities. "
The Mk 100 has also been selected for the USCG NS Cutter and OP Cutter. It has also been baselined for the LCS Flight 0.
Like I said, USN major enough power for you? Ask and ye shall receive ...
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Woah...
Since you're so appreciative ... here's more details ;)
M829 Range Safety Data
Elev (Deg) Range (m) Ordinate(m)
5 21,956 695
10 29,698 2,145
15 35,770 4,083
30 59,447 13,08635 72,374 17,577
45 99,966 29,377
55 111,945 44,072As I said previously, the above represent theoretical maximums under perfect conditions. Wind speed, Air density, Barrel wear etc all play a part to vary the figures.
Info from PRODAS (Projectile Rocket Ordanance Design & Analysis System)
-
ST > LN
Kotay > 38.
Next.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
joe>
If FlightIIA refers to the newer Burkes with the submerged smoke stacks, then the picture you showed us is not of the new Burke.
I think the following should clarify the Flight IIA confusion ...
As per Joe Black, Flight IIA starts with DDG-79
2 ships later, with DDG-81, it gets a Mk45 Mod 4 upgrade to enable it to use ERGM munitions.
4 ships later, with DDG-85, due to delays, it finally gets ESSM and the Phalanx are deleted from design.
4 ships later, with DDG-89, the superstructure gets signature managed resulting in the submerged smoke stacks.
2 ships later, with DDG-91, the superstructure gets altered again for the inclusion of the AN/WLD-1 Remote Mine-Hunting System. This is for a limited 6 ship run up till DDG-96
Those, AFAIK, are the salient visual differences within the Flight IIA series of ships ...
-
Bofors 57/70.
That would be the same gun as our MGB's......?
That one fires at 200 rounds per minute.
-
200 rounds a min, thats about 3+ round per sec. With "Beehive" type of rounds, I think it can handle any AShm pretty well.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Bofors 57/70.
That would be the same gun as our MGB's......?
That one fires at 200 rounds per minute.
Yes. Ours is the Bofors 57/70 Mk 1 ... not suitable for CIWS role.
The USN selected Mk 110 is the Bofors 57/70 Mk 3 ... 2 generations and 30 years apart.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
Since you're so appreciative ... here's more details ;)
M829 Range Safety Data
Elev (Deg) Range (m) Ordinate(m)
5 21,956 695
10 29,698 2,145
15 35,770 4,083
30 59,447 13,08635 72,374 17,577
45 99,966 29,377
55 111,945 44,072As I said previously, the above represent theoretical maximums under perfect conditions. Wind speed, Air density, Barrel wear etc all play a part to vary the figures.
Info from PRODAS (Projectile Rocket Ordanance Design & Analysis System)
A picture is worthy 1000 words. See a time-speed relation of a typical dog fight AAM:
Any maneuvering projectile with controlling surface will be identical to the AAM, although the curve shape will be somewhat different but won’t be different in magnitude.
From the curve, the missile reaches its max speed around 2.3-2.4 second when its propellant burnt out. However, it loses speed sharply when it’s in supersonic region, for a mere 4-5 second it has dropped back into subsonic region and hardly has any sheer speed to catch near sound speed cruise-missile.
Which speaks out a dart round only lose some 6% speed from the initial speed of Mach 3 over 4-5kms is aerodynamic impossible.
Actually this curve is also a good explanation why a high off boresight AAM + HMS is not what a “what you can see is what you can shoot” kind of myth.