First, the AN/SLQ-32 electronic combat system has to detect a threat with its extremely sophisticated radar. Then the computer part of the system identifies the threat ("vampire") and alerts the crew that something wicked this way comes. As the missile gets closer, the long-range radar hands off to the shorter-range SPY-1D.
At about 30 miles out, the ship finally has the chance to fire off two SM-2 missiles to destroy the vampire. If the SM-2 and the backup both fail, then the crew will fire off a pair of short-range Sea Sparrow missiles. Just to be safe, they'll probably also engage a countermeasure — in this case, a Nulka antimissile decoy.
If all of those somehow fail and the vampire is still incoming, that's when the Phalanx close-in weapon system (CIWS) kicks into gear. CIWS is a radar-guided Gatling gun that puts out 20mm armor-piercing tungsten penetrator rounds at a rate (depending on the model) of 50 to 75 per second — a veritable wall of steel a vampire must penetrate.
If you think CIWS is an ugly-sounding name, you should see one of the things. The nicest way I can describe one is that it looks a little like R2-D2 sporting an erection.
"In a landmark engagement last week in the Red Sea," Popular Mechanics just reported, "a U.S. Navy destroyer shot down an incoming Houthi anti-ship cruise missile," with CIWS for the first time, "suggesting the ship’s long-range weapons systems failed to neutralize the threat." But that's only a suggestion since "we don’t know the exact details of the engagement, so it’s unclear if the use of Phalanx over other systems was intentional."
Until recently, CIWS had never been fired in combat. For that matter, the Sea Sparrow has never been called upon to do its thing, either, because the SM-2 has never once failed in its job to protect its ship at the extreme range. It's nice that our surface warfare ships have four layers of missile defense but it's impressive that they'd never before had to go more than one deep.
It's even more impressive when you consider that the Phalanx CIWS began development in 1969 and was first deployed in 1978.
As part of our annual IFR refresher course back in '96, a Chief weather guesser would come give a lecture. He would show us the scar from the CIWS round he took during a naval exercise. The same burst killed the OOD on the bridge.
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.dailypress.com/1989-10-12/news/8910120238_1_iwo-jima-ship-close-in-weapons-system
A guy in our shop was carrying a heavy crate, lost his grip on the handle and dropped it catching his wedding ring, ripped his ring finger right off. That hit every safety briefing on base that week, including bloody pictures.
DeleteIn an engineer unit in the army I saw a dood with rings on his fingers cross jump a gamagoat battery and the rings instantly turned white hot and burned the fingers right off. I took off my class ring and never wore any rings again. Watches and necklaces and neckties too - don't wear em.
DeleteOne of the things they taught us in Navy ET school when trouble shooting was remove any or all of your finger rings and when probing circuits to keep one hand in your pocket to avoid a cross connect through your heart.
DeleteEven 12VDC through your hand hurts and leaves the oddest metallic taste in your mouth.
Nemo
Sorry, the link has been archived.
ReplyDeletehttps://web.archive.org/web/20131021113525/http://articles.dailypress.com/1989-10-12/news/8910120238_1_iwo-jima-ship-close-in-weapons-system
I was in the Navy when the incident on the USS Iwo Jima occurred. As I recall it was human error and not a fowl-up of the equipment. The target for the CWIS was towed in front of the ship and the CWIS did it's job.
ReplyDeleteI remember hearing stories back then about pilots towing targets. The CWIS would destroy the target and would then start walking rounds up the tow cable.
DeleteThe regular question at the ESWS Board was the Detect to Engage, you answered perfectly.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the length of the deployment and the number of missiles that had to be shot down aimed at merchant and navy ships, I'm wondering if the store of standard missiles is getting low. Though they would have to be 'Out' of standard anti-missiles before a captain would risk handing the job to a fifty year old untried system.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how low the armed forces supply of missile really is?
Supply of SM2's is one thing, but the greater concern our Navy's inability to replenish and reload the DDGs Vertical Launch System (VLS) other than alongside a pier. Once the VLS magazine cells are all fired the ship is Winchester and must go into a port to rearm. Major vulnerability.
DeleteDidn't they build the capacity to reload internally into the Zumwalts?
DeleteSpeaking of which, where are those useless white elephants while the Navy is being stretched so thin?
When I think of how many brand new Ageis ships we could have built with the money wasted on Z.
The Navy got rid of the tenders
Deleteso, mistah smotty, posting a pic would have killed you?
ReplyDeleteAre you not entertained?
DeleteSheesh, some people complain about anything.
Obsolete.
ReplyDeleteThey're called 'Hypersonic missiles'.
Cloud of plasma absorbs radar signals at the nose cone.
Remember a minute of no radio comms on spacecraft upon re-entry?
Same thing. Makes Phalanx useless.
We're 2 generations behind the Russkies after wasting trillons in the Middle East for 20 years.
Yes, but don't tell the normies that, it makes them upset.
DeleteIf we had actually spent our defense spending properly, we would be light years ahead but instead our own defense companies have been ripping us off blind developing weapons that don't work in the real world.
The debacle in UA has proven that.
None of that stuff WE pay for should be in the ME or any where else "over there", it should be on our own borders.
DeleteA cloud of plasma just might show up on heat sensors. On another note: I'm sure it's been gamed out, but what happens to a hypersonic missile when it hits a wall of water?
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when something traveling near the speed of an asteroid hits the water?
DeletePs. So one hits the water.
DeleteThey launch 'em in salvos of 10 to 12.
One's gonna get through.
Scratch one flattop.
Anoymous @8:44 LOL, just like your Russian supersonic continent destroying nuclear torpedos, right? So you are saying it would take us 4 years to get no where in a 2 week special military operation?
ReplyDelete"Plasma absorbs radar" goes right there with "fire can't melt steel".
Must be a youngster.
DeleteDon't remember 'radio disruption' during all our spacecraft re-entry...including the shuttles?
Grok it?
In the 2000's I worked for the International Arctic Research Center studying studying the aura (which happens to be plasma), for testing we would use an ionospheric heater known as HAARP (ever heard of it?), it would heat up sections of the ionosphere (turning them in to plasma) which we would then track and analyze with a series of radars part of what was known as the Super Dual Aurora Radar Network. Plasma shows up bright as day to any radar.
Delete'radio disruption' is not RADAR disruption... the shuttles did not 'disappear' from NASA (and anyone else's) radar. Plasma spits out a ton of RF over all frequencies which prevents radio (WAY lower power then RADAR) signals. If you had ever bothered to read up at all on actual hyper sonic vehicles you would know that is one of their main draw back, you can't send them course corrections.
Go back with the rest of your pot heads and complain about 'the man', you are too short for this ride.
What this means is that with ONE drone that costs at MOST a few thousand dollars the camel fu*kers can force the US Navy to expend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars worth of ordnance. That math represents costs that CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.
ReplyDeleteThe entire US Armed Forces excel at breaking windows with gold coins.
DeleteBet the Iranians are building SAM sites in Yemen right now.
Can't verify this, I'm working from memory . . . Heard / read long ago that during the development of CIWS it had a tendency to shoot at wave crests, seagulls, etc. Also, that it operates without a gunner on a trigger; there's just an "On/Off" switch. The system is programmed to recognize and identify incoming objects based on their radar signature. I was stationed on Okinawa during the Falklands war, and we were told that the Brits lost some ships to Argentine Exocet missiles because the Brits also used Exocet, and therefore their systems were programmed to recognize an Exocet signature as "friendly". Much more recently, I'd heard that the Exocet's manufacturer had equipped the missiles with a "kill" switch which would respond to a coded radio signal, but that feature had not been disclosed to the Brits.
ReplyDelete