Does Formidable Class need CIWS?
-
Originally posted by kotay:
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 ...
Which yet again shows u lacking in depth understanding of how a DDG-1000 integrated ADS works.
Yes, u don’t see SEA-RAM because there’s more capable ESSM in place of that.
Of course I can expect you will ask why DDG-51 features both ESSM and SEA-RAM but DDG-1000 doesn’t?
DDG-51’s anti-air fire channels are limited by only 3 AN/SPG-62 Fire control radars. SPG-62 not only has to provide terminal guidance to ESSM but also SM-2. any leaking Sea skimming ASHCM from the most formable SM-2/ESSM interception could only be the fire channels are saturated, so that’s why a standalone, fire-n-forget SEA-RAM comes into play to make up the fire channel discrepancy.
However, DDG-1000 features an AESA SPY-3 to provide all kinds of fire control needs for all AAW missiles. Because it’s AESA, it can provide numerous fire channels by DBF. So the limitation only comes to the launch speed of ESSM, but MK57 VLS is more capable than a SEA-RAM’s slope launch box. At least provide better 360 degree coverage. So what u see is the primary close-in weapon system seamless built in with the theater air defense system. Don’t forget RIM-162 ESSM outperforms or at least matches the RIM-116’s every envelope. From close to far. From low to high. Of course a SEA-RAM CIWS appears in other form cam mislead the mass.
Think Yanks will trust an unproven gun system to be the primary CIWS? Yet another no clue about how the world only superpower with half of world war chest comes into weapon system selection.
Even comes into apple to apple comparison, I don’t understand a DDG-1000 features 2 X57mm guns at a speed almost double that of OTO SR 76mm gun can be similar to a single gunned frigate for CIWS need? A sheer rate of fire comparison is MK110 on board DDG-1000 is almost 4 times greater than Formidable class.
-
In addition, no matter how , MK110 doesn’t use any outdated CLOS guided round for Anti ASHCM, it still much works in the same principle that Phalanx does but only in a smart way to build “curtain explosion” that we are used to associate with Gun CIWS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtOgY8L3Jy0
That's why I don't understand when I said the "eyeless, brainless gun rounds" can't compared to primary missile systems then somebody jumped out and asked me to read but till the end of the day, someone failed to prove his "brain smart" dart round got any future in CIWS.
-
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
U should only ask urself one thing: an atitude of 40km is the same situation at the sea level or not?An F-15 can reach max speed of mach 2 over at high altitude but barely over speed of sound at sea level when its engine pulls out the same full thrust at the same load.
When an OTO 76mm SR gun engaging a seam skimming missile, what most likely elevation it will use?!
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
U should only ask urself one thing: an atitude of 40km is the same situation at the sea level or not?An F-15 can reach max speed of mach 2 over at high altitude but barely over speed of sound at sea level when its engine pulls out the same full thrust at the same load.
When an OTO 76mm SR gun engaging a seam skimming missile, what most likely elevation it will use?!
You're asking for trouble.
Nobody said that an M1 would be crazy enough to do that.
And must I repeat again that the 76mm does not use such a trajectory to do its job? So why the heck are you using these to fire blanks?
Or are you running out of projectles?
-
Originally posted by kotay:
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.
The MK3 can hide its barrel.....pretty cool feature. -
Dear 38,
This is so good I have to do this one first.
You have scored a few own goals already but this one is the mother-of-all own goals.
This one is the equivalent of a striker taking the ball, running the whole length of the field … and then turning around and running back to his own goal and shooting it in.
UNBELIEVABLE
Remember how this whole discussion started?
Remember how, at the start of the thread, that some of us said that the 76 Super Rapid, with the HE-MOM round, could fulfill the role of a CIWS mount?
Remember what you said to that?
Post by 38
Well, Proximity Fuse only activates at a farely close range, u seems still don't get what I mean, how your munition can auto close in a AshCM performing a 15G manuver at terminal stage, by Inertia flight? the SEA-RAM can close in because it has the IR/UV seeker and its onboard cpu can resolve the incoming AshCm's trajectory and autopilot the missile close into the intecepting target by the missile's aerodynamic design( Rotating). What's your munition's eyes and brain in play except the proximity fuse?
So near the start of this thread, you claim that an unguided, proximity fused, medium caliber projectile CANNOT possibly get close enough to a maneuvering AShM to be effective.
Which is why I raised the issue of Strales DART … which is why we had this whole long winded discussion … leading finally (!) to this bit that has to be immortalized as the ultimate “argue one full circle until you contradict yourself” own-goal.
Post by 38
In addition, no matter how , MK110 doesn’t use any outdated CLOS guided round for Anti ASHCM, it still much works in the same principle that Phalanx does but only in a smart way to build “curtain explosion” that we are used to associate with Gun CIWS:
So it is POSSIBLE for unguided, proximity fused, medium caliber rounds to throw up a “curtain explosion” that we are used to associate with Gun CIWS?
Fook me … certainly took you long enough to agree to that. If you had agreed to this earlier, we needn’t have had to go through this whole long winded process.
The 76 SR can perform CIWS roles using HE-MOM rounds … the Formidable has a 76 SR … case closed? Cut and dried?
-
Post by 38
That's why I don't understand when I said the "eyeless, brainless gun rounds" can't compared to primary missile systems then somebody jumped out and asked me to read but till the end of the day, someone failed to prove his "brain smart" dart round got any future in CIWS.
I am tempted to keep arguing on the Strales DART on the presumption that you will also soon come one full circle and contradict yourself.
Since you didn’t bother to have the manners to read through others post, the future of the Strales DART is also being demonstrated by the FREMM frigate program. The FREMM is a Joint Franco-Italian program with a 27 ship build plan … not small potatoes by modern ship classes.
The 76SR gun was selected for the FREMM on the strength of the Strales DART capability and it is intended for the 2-3 mounts per ship to have this capability retrofitted when ready. I’m not joking … 2 x 76SR per ship for the French FREMM and 3(!) x 76 SR for the Italian FREMMs. Wanna question the need for this many mounts?
Mate, it’s not just my opinions. I have given you multiple sources to show how the DART can work. All you have given is your own, personal and demonstrably flawed, opinion that it doesn’t.
Like I said previously, various DoDs and project teams, with tons of money at their disposal have endorsed it. If you really feel that you are that much of a genius that you know something they don’t, why don’t you go apply to work for them and show them their errors? For that matter, keep you talent at home, apply to work for ST. We could certainly use someone of your talent in ST.
BTW, during the entry interview, don’t forget to mention your thesis on why a CLOS missile cannot possibly work against maneuvering air targets.
Post by 38
Which yet again shows u lacking in depth understanding of how a DDG-1000 integrated ADS works.
Yes, u don’t see SEA-RAM because there’s more capable ESSM in place of that.
*snip*
Think Yanks will trust an unproven gun system to be the primary CIWS? Yet another no clue about how the world only superpower with half of world war chest comes into weapon system selection.
Even comes into apple to apple comparison, I don’t understand a DDG-1000 features 2 X57mm guns at a speed almost double that of OTO SR 76mm gun can be similar to a single gunned frigate for CIWS need? A sheer rate of fire comparison is MK110 on board DDG-1000 is almost 4 times greater than Formidable class
I think most of us here understand how layer defense works and what is implied by the limitations of SARH/CLOS in handling saturation attacks … nice spiel about all that but it’s not the point is it? I’m going to wind down my replies now since the original issue about the 76 SR has been resolved … so just a quick poser.
With your knowledge of weapon system selection and your powerful logical acumen, please tell us why the Mk 110 was chosen?
If the SM-2/ESSM 2-layer is deemed good enough to handle all anti-air and anti-missile threats, than why select the 57mm Bofors for the role of a non-CIWS close protection gun?
If the CIGS is only for surface targets, than why, of all the choices available, do they choose an expensive, deck penetrating gun mount? There are many other non-penetrating gun mounts, of lower caliber, that can offer a more gradated response to asymmetric threat environments. 57mm can be a bit of an overkill in some instances.
Could it be that despite all your fluff about the Zumwalt’s integrated defense network, the USN selected the Mk 110 because it has CIWS (CIGS) capabilities and will actually give them a 3-layer hard kill anti-missile defense.
Post by 38
Of course I can expect you will ask why DDG-51 features both ESSM and SEA-RAM.
Which Ships? I'd really like to know ...
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
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.
Mate, as Shotgun has mentioned before, you are only giving half the story. If you are not doing it deliberately, than you simply lack the depth of knowledge that you accuse other people of. If, OTOH, you are doing it deliebrately, than it can only mean one thing ... you're being dishonest.
A question for you then …
Is the speed-time curve you posted for a maneuvering or non-maneuvering missile?
The reason why this whole argument dragged (excuse the pun) on is because you insisted that sheer aerodynamic drag alone will cause the projectile to become subsonic over 5km.
A careful look at the formula for calulating aero drag alone will show you where you are going worng. But since you don’t believe my calculations, I also posted M829 APFSDS velocity loss table … to disprove your claim on aerodynamic drag loss in straight flight.
If you post a speed-time curve of a maneuvering missile as a direct comparison, now that’s being either “no clue” or dishonest.
In any case, if you claim that the same curve applies for the energy state of the DART in similar “unknown” conditions, than how is the DART not out-performing the sidewinder?
From your curve, I can see that the sidewinder is accelerating quite linearly to ~650m/s over 2.2s. So how far has it traveled in that 2.2s?
The original 2km I gave was because I gave the sidewinder instant acceleration to top speed … I gave face.
Thanks to your speed-time curve, we can work out that the sidewinder accelerates at 295m/s/s for 2.2s. Motor burn-out and top speed is achieved after a flight distance of 325m.
Unless I muffed my physics … that right 325 meters ! Not 2km.
How long does it take a 1,200m/s DART to travel 325m? Let’s call it 0.5s, just to make your claim that the RAM missile has a higher energy state more ridiculous … according to your speed-time curve, the missile lost about 100m/s of velocity in the 0.5 seconds after launch. That works out to be about a 15.4% velocity loss. Let’s call it 20%.
At 325m distance from the launch platform, your sidewinder missile has a velocity of 650m/s.
At the same 325m distance, the DART has a velocity of (1200x0.8) = 960m/s.
So, the RAM missile has a higher energy state than the DART? In your dreams mate.
It’s amazing your ability to keep producing little factoids that actually do more harm to your arguments. Seriously … stop calling people “no clue” or “lack of depth .. it's coming back to bite you. Big Time!
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
U should only ask urself one thing: an atitude of 40km is the same situation at the sea level or not?An F-15 can reach max speed of mach 2 over at high altitude but barely over speed of sound at sea level when its engine pulls out the same full thrust at the same load.
When an OTO 76mm SR gun engaging a seam skimming missile, what most likely elevation it will use?!
Ermmm 38, I don't know how to tell you this ... but there are other people in this forum.
And these other people, including myself ... we do talk about other things.
That table was for ST for a totally unrelated o/t discussion ... totally not related to CIWS or DART or CLOS.
It's not always about you mate ... ;)
-
what the hell with sea-ram ? You think missile defense system is better ?
Yep our frigate got - Aster 15 - Short/medium range surface-air anti-aircraft and anti-missile missile . - that is one of the most advance missile system , if not better then sea-ram.
The aster-15 provide the outer layer protection.
The next layer is 76mm
final layer is decoy .
If you think aster 15 + 76mm + decoy is not good enough - what make you think sea-ram which is also a missile system like aster is better ?
In May 1996, trials of the Aster 15 active electromagnetical final guidance system against live targets began. All six attempts were successful:
- 8 April 1997: interception of a C22 target simulating a subsonic antiship missile, flying at 10 metres, at a distance of 7 kilometres.
- 23 May 1997: Direct impact on an Exocet anti-ship missile of the first generation, at 9 kilometres, to protect a distant ship (7 kilometres). This was the first "hit-to-kill" interception ever against an anti-ship missile.
- 13 November 1997: interception of a C22 target in very low flight in a strong countermeasures environment. In this test, the Aster was not armed with its military warhead so that the distance between the Aster and the target could be recorded. The C22 was recovered bearing two strong cuts due to the fins of the Aster missile.
- 30 December 1997: Interception of a live C22 target by an Aster 30 at a distance of 30 kilometres, an altitude of 11,000 metres, and a speed of 900 km/h. The Aster climbed up to 15,000 metres before falling on the target at a speed of 2880 km/h. The closest distance between the Aster and the C22 was four metres.
- 29 June 2001 : Interception of a Arabel missile in low altitude, in less than five seconds.
- In 2001 : Interception by the Aster 15 of a target simulating an aircraft flying at Mach-1 at an altitude of 100 metres.
- On 3rd April 2008, the Republic of Singapore Navy frigate RSS Intrepid shot down a aerial drone off the French port of Toulon.
-
Originally posted by 38�Ž:
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.
You think people don't know this when they shoot missiles?
Every weapon out there has an "envelope." This envelope is the minimum and maximum distance the missile can hit depending on target's aspect. (ie. Which way its moving in relation to you, eg towards you, away from you, or perpendicular) For simplicity's sake, lets called this Rmin1, and Rmax1.
Now thats simply the amount of "energy" the missile has available to travel, regardless of speed.
Within this main envelope, lies a secondary and more important envelope. Its called the NO-ESCAPE-ZONE (NEZ). This is the distance envelope which when the missile is launched, it will SURELY hit its target as it has sufficient "energy." Lets called this Rmin2, Rmax2.
Obviously, a target manuevering under 500kts in the above diagram would be in the Rmin2 , Rmax2 if within the first 2.3 sec when the motor is still burning. Somewhere after that point, depending on the target's manuevering aspect, would be in Rmin1 and Rmax1.
In a dogfight or any AAM shoot out, while it makes sense to shoot within the NEZ, we have to be aware that we would also be within the opponents NEZ, so we tend to shoot in the WEZ instead at higher speeds or altitude.
BUT, when engaging a supersonic missile, nothing its gonna shoot back at us, so, I'd definitely shoot within my NEZ. As you can see, air-to-air interception and surface to air interception are indeed 2 very different ball games.
The Sidewinder is a pretty high-drag missile that tops out somewhere under mach 1.8. Its control surfaces are optimized for manueverability and cause a lot of induced drag.
If the graphs for the AMRAAM-Cs aren't classified, you'd see a different picture. The initial deceleration after the motor burn out won't be as steep. But as it nears the transonic region, you will see a steeper deceleration before it graduals out again as it clears the transonic region.
The Sidewinder is in no way physically similar to the Strales Dart given its higher drag designed thats more intended for manueverability.
-
Just 2 let u know the RAM current homing cant engage IR missile like e Penguin anti-ship missiles cos its design 2 home on e radar emission on e missile. Just becos it a US made wpn dont means tat it is e best. I still prefer e Aster 15/30
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
Just 2 let u know the RAM current homing cant engage IR missile like e Penguin anti-ship missiles cos its design 2 home on e radar emission on e missile. Just becos it a US made wpn dont means tat it is e best. I still prefer e Aster 15/30
The initial block 0 version is like that. Subsequent versions including the Sea Ram (can someone confirm? thx) has a dual mode guidance which means it can do a IR all the way homing or a IR/RF homing. -
Thanks for e update foxtrout8
-
RAM Block 1 missile has IR all the way guidance. The dual mode capability is retained in the Block 1.
Latest version is the RAM Block 1A which adds capability to engage fixed & rotary wing targets and also surface targets. It is mainly a software upgrade to the Block 1 missile.
-
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/an-lcs-for-israel-04065/#more-4065
looks smart
-
Supersonic missiles such as the SS-N-22 Sunburn travel so fast that warships typically only have seconds to react to the missile. The USN was said to have procured some of the Sunburns for the purpose of developing countermeasures for the weapon. It is safe to say that the USN does know of the threat and developed measures to defeat it.
Now also, the other thing to consider for point defence systems is that a system such as the Phalanx may or may not be 100% effective against a super sonic missile that carries so much momentum that the debris will still strike the ship and potentialy damage equipment. The Arleigh Burkes were built for survivability and damn are they some of the finest ships in the world. Also, the SPY-1D radar isn't the only radar on the ship. There's the SPS-67 surface search radars which can be used to detect sea skimming missiles. The SPY-1D radar has 4 emitters as well. Ultimately with supersonic sea skimming missilse, you are going to need ever single trick in the book to protect the ship. SM-2/3 and Aster-15/30s are simply not enough. You need RAM like the ESSD.
-
Bottom line is that Formidable Class needs one last ditch CIWS system.
-
after listening to all these and that, somehow i still think we need this:
-
The Block 1B with FLIR will be better. Our Formidable class clearly needs one of these or similar.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
Like I said previously, various DoDs and project teams, with tons of money at their disposal have endorsed it. If you really feel that you are that much of a genius that you know something they don’t, why don’t you go apply to work for them and show them their errors? For that matter, keep you talent at home, apply to work for ST. We could certainly use someone of your talent in ST.
....
With your knowledge of weapon system selection and your powerful logical acumen, please tell us why the Mk 110 was chosen?
If the SM-2/ESSM 2-layer is deemed good enough to handle all anti-air and anti-missile threats, than why select the 57mm Bofors for the role of a non-CIWS close protection gun?
If the CIGS is only for surface targets, than why, of all the choices available, do they choose an expensive, deck penetrating gun mount? There are many other non-penetrating gun mounts, of lower caliber, that can offer a more gradated response to asymmetric threat environments. 57mm can be a bit of an overkill in some instances.
Could it be that despite all your fluff about the Zumwalt’s integrated defense network, the USN selected the Mk 110 because it has CIWS (CIGS) capabilities and will actually give them a 3-layer hard kill anti-missile defense.
....
Since the thread is still much alive…
The MK110 system in USN is still basically an ASuW against hostile small speed boat or the likes. The DDG1000 is a new era destroyer countering new type of threats, the terrorist. The DDG1000 is designed to accomplish missions in littoral water. So MK110 gun system is primarily tasked to do the job mentioned above. Not the mission of CIWS closely associated with anti-ASCM.
Look at another vessel designed for littoral water—the LCS, set to replace FFG7. LCS features both MK110 and SEA-RAM, the MK110 is mainly for engaging speedboats pop up in littoral terrain. While the RIM-116 SEA-RAM on board is for what we have discussed so long here—CIWS:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
MAIN GUN
Both General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin vessels are armed with BAE Systems Land and Armaments (formerly United Defense) mk110 57mm naval gun system. The mk110 fires mk295 ammunition at a rate of 220 rounds a minute to a range of 14km (nine miles).
GENERAL DYNAMICS TRIMARAN
The slender stabilised trimaran monohull proposed by the General Dynamics team has an overall length of 127.8m, maximum beam of 28.4m and full load displacement of 2,637t. The seaframe is based on Austal's design for the Benchijigua Express passenger / car ferry.
A naval forward looking infrared is fitted above the bridge. The Raytheon SeaRAM anti-ship missile defence system is installed on the hangar roof. SeaRAM combines the sensors of the Phalanx 1B close-in weapon system but replaces the 20 mm gun with an 11-missile launcher for the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). 50-calibre machine gun mounts are installed port and starboard on the walkway on either side of the hangar and at the stern just below the level of the stern helicopter deck. -
Sign-on to the RSN if you want such systems up.
The weapons might not need extra men to man, but it would certainly pose a mainteinance headache with the current strength.