It is often lamented that so much British defence equipment is fitted for but seemingly never with. When the Type 45 Destroyers started to come into service the absence of a close in weapons system were notable but HMS Daring is the first of class to receive her Phalanx 1B CIWS.
From Babcock Marine;
Babcock undertakes equipment procurement from the US original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Raytheon, and will supervise the installation in HMS Daring at Portsmouth Naval Base. Once the installation of the two systems is complete Babcock engineers will then commission the systems, culminating in Naval Weapon Sea Trial (NWST) including a towed target firing.
The installation of Phalanx 1B in HMS Daring represents the 5th and 6th fit of the 1B system. Under a contract held by Babcock as prime contractor to upgrade 16 Phalanx systems to the 1B system capability on Royal Navy vessels, the company has previously been responsible for two installations of the upgraded systems on Type 42 destroyer HMS York and on fleet replenishment ship RFA Fort Victoria.
In addition to providing the 1B upgrade installations, Babcock has a ten year support contract for the 36 Phalanx systems, based on providing availability of the systems throughout their life on board ship.
Also this week, BAe has been awarded a £46 million contract to provide support for the Sampson multi-function radars (MFR) on board the fleet of six Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyers. The support contract, awarded by MBDA, is designed as a forerunner to a full ‘contract for availability’ arrangement and will generate data on the radar’s performance which will enable a long-term support solution to be delivered to the Royal Navy.
There is a general move towards contracting for availability in which the supplier is contracted for systems availability and incentivised for exceding availability targets.
Picture from DJ, a Think Defence commenter, thanks!
Thank fuck for that. At least the Yanks test their stuff against representative targets…unlike us and the Frogs
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But yet more money for another contract for another study that will form the basis of another contract costing yet more money. I suppose if it has to be so it has to be so….
I note that crane is sitting in that area along the dock wall where it says in big letters 3.5ton limit. Eek!
Now all they need is some Harpoons and Torpedoes! Still, good news is hard to find nowadays in defence so it’s nice to see a small thing going right.
I have to ask though, aren’t we looking at something SeaRAM-ey? Is it not required with Sea Viper? Or is it simply too costly?
A classic “fitted for, but not with” spot is the ammunition magazine. How many VLS cells are actually loaded?
There’s a rumour that even the totally overfunded USN has barely enough missiles to load all its VLS cells.
Btw, why would a navy install Phalanx (which has a mixed record) instead of installing the RIM-116 RAM system with its perfect test record (and preferred by the Phalanx’s primary buyer, the USN, over Phalanx)?!?
Well the important thing is the plumbing (supply and drain for cooling water) and wiring (power and data) are now in place if Their Lordships wanted to upgrade to SeaRam. SeaRam isn’t that expensive. Though they will probably go for some BAE sonic cannon that hasn’t been designed, doesn’t quite fit when designed, and will require substantial messing about and a few zillion extra….
Hopefully Merlin flight deck kit is next on the list. In theory that should cost just a bit less than CIWS upgrade. Though really it isn’t an upgrade I suppose.
@ Sven
why Phalanx – recycled sets from decommissioned Type 42′s. HMS York undertook a SeaRAM trial a decade ago. I believe it was successful but no funding was put aside as although nice to have the extra capability, it was less of a game-changer / top priority; with the then forthcoming Type 45′s PAAMS expected to catch more of the incoming threats, compared to having to urgently back up the deficiencies of Sea Dart.
Not just that: “why Phalanx – recycled sets from decommissioned Type 42′s”
- but all 36, upgraded or not, supported under one contract
- wonder how many are in A-stan, and how the contract works for those pieces?
36 is not a bad number; but looking at the angles of fire, at least a third one needed on hangar roof, or thereabouts… that’s twelve ships, then
Add the Goalkeepers for the amphibs (are there enough?)
- they have nothing else
- they are likely to be near the coastline and thereby exposed also to swarm attacks by boats (Goalkeeper’s much longer reach should help)
SeaRAM: more flexible sectors of fire? (fewer units needed)…But what about standardisation across sea and land for tactical air defence (missiles)?
Yay, lets fit our brand spanking new, new millenium warships with a pop-gun designed in the 70′s….
Plenty of room for the new kit (is it CAMM to be, or something else, with a cold launch and then finding its direction?): 19 -12 = every other frigate, assuming the Darings all get CIWS rather sooner than later
Hi SO & ACC
What about this in terms of priority:-
Fit RIM – Ram or SeaRam to Ocean, Amphibs & especially the Replenishment ships when we can afford it.
As you’ve pointed out and as we’ve seen recently (Libya), they operate closer in and the cost of losing (lives and £), a full with stores replenishment ship would be crippling at the moment.
Just wondering ladies and gents, what do you see as the most pressing need (procurement or replacement), right now across all of the service’s?
If you had X amount, would you replace the SA80 over anything else? <—example.
Nice to see a “for but not” becoming “with”, for a change.
There was a joke a while back that the RN would soon be fitted “for but not with warships”. I’ve been thinking that it is rapidly ceasing to be funny…
SeaRam is nice, but needs additional sensor-shooter integration, while Phalanx and Goalkeeper are (almost) plug & play. So putting SeaRam on ships does require additional software and sensor (when installed on auxiliaries).
Besides anti-air/missile, Phalanx also has a surface defense role. Although limited, surely intimidating!
Doesn’t searam at the moment enter the realms of gold plating for gold platings sake whereas upgraded Phalanx firmly fits into the new ethos of ‘good enough’?
The Navy’s priorities are:
CVF and regenerating carrier strike
MARS
Type 26
Successor SSBN
Fast Landing Craft
Future Force Protection Craft
CIWS upgrades are not likely to appear anytime soon on the “To Do” list, especially since the RN will be hard pressed to fit the truly important stuff into the budget as it is.
Phalanx for now is perfectly fine.
The Type 45s are to get Phalanx 1B, as Fort Victoria has. The Phalanx mounts will migrate from the Type 42s.
Fort Victoria has a couple of Phalanx 1B too.
3 Phalanx should be now available for “prior-to-deployment” fitting now after Ark Royal’s retirement, as i’m sure they will have been removed and put aside, of course.
2 Phalanx have been fitted to Cardigan Bay prior to Cougar deployment in the Med.
If the Phalanx are 36, of which 16 to 1B standard that could work out as:
RFA Fort Victoria 2x1B
Type 45s 2x1B (x6)
3 more 1B could be allocated for fitting to Queen Elizabeth
3 Phalanx are on Ocean
3 more will go on Prince of Wales (hopefully further 1b upgrades will be pursued)
This would leave up to 13, but 3 to 7 have been converted into Centurion land-based C-RAM systems which the army leased (?!?) back for Iraq ops. The Centurion issue is a bit complex, and i admit being in the thick of the darkness about the fate of the guns after Iraq ended.
I know the Royal Navy made available a number of its Phalanx 1A, and that as part of the Centurion they become a land-adapted 1B, with addition of FLIR and improved targeting computer.
But how many, i don’t know. I’ve tried to dig info about the Centurion current status in UK service, but i always failed.
In the worst case, there should be 6 more Phalanx, which could rotate onto deploying ships: they are no standard fit, but as i said Cardigan Bay currently has a couple fitted prior to sailing out on Cougar, and each Bay can take that.
Fort Austin and Fort Rosalie can also be fitted easily with a couple each, and the Wave tankers are also ready to take them on was it ever deemed necessary.
It is not that bad overall.
@ Michael (Civ)
For me the most important spend at the moment is to stabilise assets than are ongoing, i.e. CIWS for type 45, I’d keep AS90 as is, but would give funds to increase accuracy (Excalibur type) if available.
If you must spend on artillery go for a direct fire ASCOD, or better ARCHER. (While it is unlikely that we will be challenged in head on tank battles I think rate of fire, range and accuracy are worth developing).
Main area that I would focus on is munitions- both having enough and looking to deploy new air burst (such as for CTA) as well as AHEAD to strengthen both CIWS and with Skyranger types ground attack.
Also I would look to adopt new Norwegian Multirole missile – maritime / JSF etc..(Use up old Harpoons but not replace).
Even introduce the THOR system for multiple missile types such as Hellfire Brimstone etc… on multiple platforms
Also I would expect to introduce some 120 mm mortar systems for indirect/direct fire
Broad thrust- it does not make sense to me that 3000 ish javelins are being lugged around AStan to knock down walls.
It suggests that we need to have as much of an increase in supporting firepower as we have seen at section level – we should try to use cheaper munitions from a wide range of platforms to increase the ability to detonate munitions at close proximity to the target.
Some of this is about collateral casualties but some is also about speed of suppression and sustaining accuracy at range (through an extended range of the shot gun effect)
T45s are complicated enough ships. For once right decisions were made to make them less complicated so they could actually see service. No they do not have every bell and whistle but they have the capability to have them and they are actually in service. People can have wet dreams over fantasy fleets and uber destroyers all they like, the reality is even without the recent review we live in a world of finite means and priorities are needed. A weapon system that has NEVER been used since its invention (the ship fired ASM) was deleted and the money better spent. I agree with that. It is the sort of decisions we need more of so we can have a balanced force. There are plenty of gucci weapon systems we’d all like to see but very often there are VERY sound reasons behind them not being present.
Good news at last, this was always the plan for the 45′s if I remember right, a tiny effort to mitigate the huge costs of the new-build.
Either way, its one more part of the ship to go on… though apparently the ships systems are still giving it issues, as with any new big thing.
We should send a 45 to the US for some live and manouvering/ECM equipped target practise, like the USN does… for anti-cruise and anti-fixed wing training and clearance… ensure we have a system in place for when the CVN’s come intoservice… though there’s no rush!
“Just wondering ladies and gents, what do you see as the most pressing need (procurement or replacement), right now across all of the service’s?”
Improve officer training and culture.
It’s still too harmony-centric, not ready enough to fight for improvements.
Javelins are not being used against walls, at least they shouldn’t be. ASMs and LASMs are being used, since they have a mousehole function (well ASMs do) and are a lot of fun to fire.
We can already do everything you say you want us to do RW – our 81mm mortars when used well are extremely accurate and can be called in very close with proxy HE. We have GMLRs and accurate 105mm artillery. What we need to concentrate more on is being able to utilise these to their best effect and co-ordinate all the fire support assets well so you don’t have the scenario of it taking 30 mins to cue a GMLR strike because a bastard American A10 pilot is point blank refusing orders to clear the airspace.
We have speed of suppression, I’ve witnessed 81mm mortars being dropped within 20 seconds of the start of contacts because the mortar line knew its job well, the fires were planned beforehand and the MFCs were shit hot. There’s no need to throw money at capabilities we already possess, what we do need to do is work on using them in an even better way.
@ Phil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltim
Glad to see they finally have a CIWS! Just cannot understand why we have gone for Phalanx, it has dubious capability, and its another round 20mm that is at odds with the ATK bushmasters already fitted. The Goalkeper uses the same 30mm ammo, is a better system and should be our standardised CIWS. Fit it with 7-14 LMMs then yor have ans superb inner layer missile defence and a much better CIWS and standardised ammo to boot.
@x – my apologies, they have been used on the one occasion then. There really are better things to be spending money on when its tight!
Andy
Ref: “Doesn’t searam at the moment enter the realms of gold plating for gold platings sake whereas upgraded Phalanx firmly fits into the new ethos of ‘good enough’?”
No not really, it depends on what you requirements are, what you want or expect a CIWS to “stop”, i.e. what the threat is.
Phalanx 1B – possibly good against manned aircraft and swarming small boats, mind you still a small amount of on mount ammo for this role. IMHO completely frikkin’ useless against any sea skimming AShM since Exocet.
Its a 70′s designed system, which underwent a water shed test by the USN in the 80′s. The USN shot an instrumented Harpoon at an instrumented barge holding a Phalanx. The Phalanx picked up, track and shot the drone. The Harpoon was ripped apart by the 20mm APDS rounds, BUT it’s kinetic energy was not destroyed, all the bits kept on coming and hit the barge.
Now you might say that if the Harpoon had a functional warhead, it MIGHT have detonated, spreading the bits around, but some would still have you (the barge). Anything bigger and faster, like Russian missiles (that they sell to anyone with hard cash) is just going to compound the problems.
SeaRAM will hit the target at long enough range (? – hopefully ) that incoming debris / shrapnel should not be a problem.
Soooo I suppose after all that, the question for the Treasury (oooh, sorry, the RN) is do you expect to in a scenario where there are modern supersonic ‘leakers’ that get past your Sea Vipers ?
Personally I don’t think it would be gold plating, I think it would be equipping an otherwise modern warship with a properly layered defence
@ Phil
Only messing with you. The best way for ships to deploy ASMs by helicopter. And I will confess I find super-missiles like BrahMos interesting even though I am not sure if they really are practical. Um. The only reason I can see to fit ASM is a last ditch defence type measure. I suppose the outcome would all depend on how missiles each side had (both ASM and PDMS) and how many they had.
Perhaps we need BAE to build a modern heliborne version of the Long Lance. Now there’s a thought.
All good clean fun.
@x seems like they’ve been used more than the occasion you linked to. I think its good to have a well rounded ship in an ideal world, but we are in a far from ideal situation. Even the USN has started forsaking Harpoon.
@ Phil
I know, but I only needed one example…….
Baltim is interesting for all sorts of reasons. It is how many fish heads saw naval conflict in WW3.
I think a surface warfare capability is still needed. But it is very much a secondary capability. Some of those new 5in precision guided extended range rounds look interesting for that reason.
The USN have considered Harpoon a “second battery” weapon for quite a while.
Hi. I’m new to this but be gentle with me! :- )
It would seem to me that the Phalanx 1B has been installed for its surface – anti Boghammer capability rather than as an anti AShM last ditch defence. Had they wanted such a defence, Sea RAM would have been better. Later RAM’s also have an anti surface capability, but given the threat could be multiple very small boats, I would rather bet on the Phalanx which is a shorter ranged but arguably more versatile system.
Although it may never have been used, I am concerned at the lack of an AShM, particularly as its area defence missile system lacks surface to surface capability. US Standard SAMs have been used in a surface to surface role against Iranian surface craft. This could have been justified given the fact that Merlin, if embarked, has its air to surface capability limited to a .50 HMG (is it getting FASGW(L) or (H) or is that just Lynx Wildcat?) and that the ship’s ability to hit land targets is limited to a single 4.5″ gun. Block 2 Harpoon (used by Australia) has some littoral land attack capability and its smaller warhead than Tomahawk may even be a virtue in the new collateral damage sensitive world. An early SLAM variant was trialled off a USN destroyer a couple of decades ago – how hard would it be to datalink a harpoon with the SLAM ATA seeker via the Merlin or Wildcat? Another possibility is instating both an AShM and land attack capability for PAAMS. The USN were looking at reusing a redundant, arm launcher model of Standard with GPS/INS as a land attack missile a while back, calling it LASM. It was meant to cost around $175k a round if I remember correctly, which seemed expensive to me at the time, but now sounds like a bargain.
Someone mentioned the 5″ Volcano as possibility. Given its guidance options and limited warhead size, it would make a very capable and versatile long range option for land and maritime target sets, but it implies fitting a 5″ gun, which isn’t going to happen. A 155mm adaptation of the current gun/mount might (tricky as we’re talking separate loading ammunition) might as a relatively low cost option. The French army has apparently adopted the Russian Krasnopol SALH guided 155 projectile. This (assuming it’s HERO compliant) could be guided by something like firescout operated from the Type 45′s existing facilities. It wouldn’t have the true fire and forget capability of some of the Volcano variants, but it would enable precision attacks at beyond line of sight ranges (presumably a line of sight designator on the ship’s existing stabilised EO system wouldn’t be too much of a technical challenge).
Someone else mentioned adding torpedoes – something like a Mk 32 STWS. I understand that the USN is near deploying a sub calibre torpedo as an anti torpedo weapon system for launch from such tubes. My concern would be is the current sonar fit up to it? I would really like to see the 45 fitted with a mine neutralisation suite that could also take out close in, hiding/late unmasking submarines and torpedoes. I am not sure if such a system actually exists, but it arguably should.
PS: Were the Centurions reworked ex RN Phalanx or purchased/leased new (though perhaps recycled ex USN units) from the States?
Hi RW,
I know the Norvegians are eying the position of being purveyors to all F-35s , anywhere in the world, with this good product:
“Also I would look to adopt new Norwegian Multirole missile – maritime / JSF etc..(Use up old Harpoons but not replace)”
- but will that same missile be surface-launchable,too? Not sure how you meant it
@Phil Darley
Goalkeeper requires 10 feet of deck penetration, Phalanx doesn’t, not to mention Phalanx has seen more upgrades.
Hi Phil Darley
RE “Just cannot understand why we have gone for Phalanx, it has dubious capability,”
- ok , we’ve got them in reasonable quantity, so we’ll use them
” and its another round 20mm that is at odds with the ATK bushmasters already fitted.”
- am I behind with facts? Do we have Bushmaster somewhere?
” The Goalkeper uses the same 30mm ammo, is a better system and should be our standardised CIWS.”
- no doubt it is a much better/ effective system, BUT
– has several decks worth of intrusion (hence, I proposed use on amphibs, which basically are are steel and lots of air inside
– as for standardised, save for the above comment, not that many units in inventory
@Armchairchivy
Bushmaster is fitted on the DS30M Mk2 Naval Mounting on the type 23 friagte.
I agree that SeaRAm would have been nice but Phalanx is better than nothing. Goalkeeper is out due to the large amount of deckspace and internal fitting required. As far as I know SeaRam uses the same deck fitting as Phalanx so it might be possible to upgrade in future if required. Searam also comes with is own plug and play sensor system that does not require integration to the ships systems. There is also the possibility for the Raytheon laser defence system in the future which uses almost everything from Phalanx.
I would have loved to see 12 T45′s with full weapons fit from day one but at the end of the day was never going to happen. Better to have the best ship and Radar we could afford and fit the rest later. Just look at its predeccessor the T42 that was built to a budget. The ship was obsolete before it ever got in to the water in the 1970′s. It performed poorly in the Falklands and its only the fact that AAW warfare has not ben performed in 30 years that the ship is still in service today.
The US NAvy Tai’s were built at a similar time and were able to recieve numerous upgrades including VLS TLAM’s in Mk41 launchers which can fire a whole host of other goodies.
@ACC
Norwegian multirole missile is a ship launched anti ship missile with littoral capabilities such as terrain hugging and has advanced manoeuvring algorithms.
Putting it on JSF is a development based on its wide range of capabilities and size – it’s felt to be modern enough to fill a wide range of roles
Chris Werb: “PS: Were the Centurions reworked ex RN Phalanx or purchased/leased new (though perhaps recycled ex USN units) from the States?”
Hi Chris, the appearance of UK C-RAM in Iraq seemed to coincide with the removal of RFA Fort Victoria’s Phalanx units. Now that we are out of Iraq, she’s got them back and upgraded to Block 1B. Coincidence?
Gabriele: “This would leave up to 13, but 3 to 7 have been converted into Centurion land-based C-RAM systems which the army leased (?!?) back for Iraq ops.”
Cardigan Bay received Phalanx long before Cougar, during her previous Gulf deployment. Lyme Bay has it as well. Wave Knight has been fitted and I think we can expect to see Wave Ruler fitted in due course.
We know from details floating around that there is a contract to upgrade 36 Phalanx units to Block 1B. If all T45s, Bays, CVS, LPH, AOR and Waves were fitted that would be 30 units. Add to that at least one unit in a shore based training establishment. MARS should be at least FTR and IIRC the T26 concepts show Phalanx too.
Thanks Martin, seen the pictures but never made the connection “Bushmaster is fitted on the DS30M Mk2 Naval Mounting on the type 23″
Hi RW,
It is a great piece of kit, as in “Putting it on JSF is a development based on its wide range of capabilities and size – it’s felt to be modern enough to fill a wide range of roles”
-on the webpage that the official Pentagon sales person in Oslo maintains, he has been given a grilling by the local folks whether F-35 can take 2 or 3 (as far as I know the current F-16s there are the only ones in service fitted with a dedicated anti-ship missile – the Penguin)
Hi Anixtu,
Why did you omit the frigate fleet in “contract to upgrade 36 Phalanx units to Block 1B. If all T45s, Bays, CVS, LPH, AOR and Waves were fitted that would be 30 units.”?
T23 is not fitted to receive a CIWS.
@Anixtu
“Cardigan Bay received Phalanx long before Cougar, during her previous Gulf deployment. Lyme Bay has it as well. Wave Knight has been fitted and I think we can expect to see Wave Ruler fitted in due course.”
Thanks a lot for giving me this info! I had suspected that Lyme Bay probably had Phalanx as well being in the Gulf, but i had no concrete evidence of it.
“We know from details floating around that there is a contract to upgrade 36 Phalanx units to Block 1B.”
Isn’t the current contract for only 16 out of a total fleet of 36?
“Were the Centurions reworked ex RN Phalanx or purchased/leased new (though perhaps recycled ex USN units) from the States?”
They were RN Phalanx 1A mounts send in the States for conversion, receiving FLIR, 1B targeting computer and other upgrades.
The Centurion is practically a Phalanx 1B modified for land use and mounted on a trailer.
“the appearance of UK C-RAM in Iraq seemed to coincide with the removal of RFA Fort Victoria’s Phalanx units. Now that we are out of Iraq, she’s got them back and upgraded to Block 1B. Coincidence?”
I don’t know, you seem well informed. Have Centurions been removed from service and the Phalanx mounts returned to the RN?
The British Army website (which of course is not exactly known to be that much up to date, though) still lists them as RA equipment, in the 16 Regiment.
The SDSR also mandated a C-RAM system to be acquired.
I don’t know if the Phalanx mounted on Fort Victoria are ex-Centurions. Indeed, i don’t know what exactly happened to the Centurions at all.
By the way, RAM and SeaRam are quite different different. The RAM is the simple missile launcher turret, which is less expensive but has to be integrated and feed targeting data by the ship’s systems. It holds 21 missiles. It is fitted on ships and integrated with them and normally is meant to always stay there, such as on the US Navy carriers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_Launcher_3.jpg
The SeaRAM is a Phalanx 1B mount (so with its own radar and FLIR seeker) with the Vulcan gun removed and a RAM launcher with 11 missiles fitted instead. It is autonomous, and like Phalanx can be easily moved around from a ship to another and comes with all it needs once it is connected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SeaRAM_1.jpg
I was also thinking that the Uk now should have… 3 Goalkeepers removed from Invincible and 4 coming from the Type 22.
That’s a whole 7 good systems available. Couldn’t they go on the Bay? The Bay class derives from a dutch design (Rotterdam class) that does have the Goalkeeper as CIWS (one front on the bow and one back on top of the superstructure), but i guess the provvision for fitting it was not kept in the british design…?
Good information coming out…
As can be seen from the contributions over the last year, I am quite interested in the Close-In/ Last-Line defences.
So, looks like 36 +7, in all?
T45 has v restricted angles of fire to the sides, the fast big (and integrated ) gun in the front (and nothing in the back).
Goalkeeper intrusion (-) and longer range/ lethality (+) in my mind would put them onto the amphibs – I counted the Bay’s into this class.
RE “The SeaRAM is a Phalanx 1B mount (so with its own radar and FLIR seeker) with the Vulcan gun removed and a RAM launcher with 11 missiles fitted instead. It is autonomous, and like Phalanx can be easily moved around from a ship to another and comes with all it needs once it is connected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SeaRAM_1.jpg”
- this negates the biggest practical obstacle, cooling water coming and going in positions that need to be quite high up in the superstructure (frigates, especially, even though more generally, too).
- but doing this installation will eat into the 36 base systems total
My “blind spot” clearly is T23′s and “Bushmaster is fitted on the DS30M Mk2 Naval Mounting on the type 23″
- how good is it as for CIWS? Can we tick the box for all of them? Or just for the out-on-the-ocean ASW specialist edition and the more general purpose (land-attack) version should be upgraded
=> start with SeaRAM and then see where it goes within the still fluid T26 design? German navy has SeaRAMs on fairly small ships; should fit onto the T23s as an extra (Jed, I think, was the specialist providing drawings when we were in the RN & its future discussion)?
I couldn’t remember the exact source for 36, but here it is, it’s a request for a sale of the upgrade kits: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/125077/britain-buys-36-phalanx-upgrade-kits.html Note the 16 1B Baseline 1 to Baseline 2 (your existing 16 1Bs) and a further 20 1A to 1B Baseline 2.
I expect to see Goalkeeper disappear in favour of commonality, certainly not be fitted to any existing or new units. The Bays were designed for Phalanx with no provision for Goalkeeper, but even then where they have received Phalanx it has not been fitted in the positions originally prepared for it. It may be interesting to see what is done with Largs Bay in regard to what option the RAN go for, assuming they fit Phalanx.
DS30M is not a CIWS, it’s a remotely operated 30mm mount with an EO director, not radar controlled, a direct replacement for the older DS30B fitted to T23, MCMVs and some RFAs.
German navy has RAM, not SeaRAM. AFAIK the only current user of SeaRAM is the USN on LCS-2, and I don’t know if that’s just experimental. SeaWolf fulfills the equivalent role on the T23 (compare their range).
Anixtu, dont the Braunschweig corvettes mount SeaRAM. I thought Sea RAM was partly funded by ze Germans as well
Thanks Anixtu:
DS30M is not a CIWS, it’s a remotely operated 30mm mount with an EO director, not radar controlled
- just as I thought
German navy has RAM, not SeaRAM.
- who can keep these similar designations apart (RAM the bulkier system, though, so the argument stands?)
AFAIK the only current user of SeaRAM is the USN on LCS-2
- SeaWolf fulfills the equivalent role on the T23 (compare their range)
- yes, but what is that comparison; and what is the expected ‘expiry’ date for SeaWolf (if any?)
I was relying my recollection that “the Braunschweig corvettes mount SeaRAM”
- I did not check!
Now try holding a verbal conversation where you discuss SeaRAM and C-RAM!
The German corvettes and other units, including genuinely small ones like FACs, carry the 21 round RAM launcher that is cued by the ship’s combat data system. AIUI RAM was developed for a German requirement. Not sure that the SeaRAM mount was though, it’s more a direct replacement for Phalanx with fully autonomous operation.
Published effective range of SeaWolf and RAM is roughly similar. You would need to make an argument as to why two systems of similar performance (assuming SeaWolf isn’t just plain better) should be fitted to the same platform. SeaWolf is to be replaced by CAMM, which will also go on T26.
quick questions; see-ram has 11 missiles so can presumably engage 11 targets be they missiles or boats etc (see i’m good at maths!) … how many ‘bursts’ does a phalanx have the capacity to fire? does it fire a different number of rounds depending on type of target? and for both systems what is reloading like, ie. quick, easy, not possible during combat etc? i’m just wondering if for general close-in defence, and assuming sea viper works vs. the main airborne threats, if phalanx is a more flexible fit?
Wasn’t CAMM planned to go on the Type 23s from 2016, along with ARTISAN, dispensing with the whole array of Sea Wolf targeting radar and thus driving down the maintenance bill?
I also would say that Sea Wolf is quite more powerful than RAM as a missile system. CAMM, even more, will be less of a CIWS and more of a complete, real Local Area Air Defence SAM, even if it won’t have the same performances of the SAAM system of the FREMM based on the ASTER 15.
It has also been suggested that CAMM will eventually go on the Type 45 one day, replacing the Aster 15.
In practice, no more acquisitions of the 15, but just of the 30.
And since 4 CAMM launch-canisters can be fitted in a single Sylver cell, it would be possible to expand the missile load considerably.
Anyway, i found more interesting the latest news from Le Bourget about ongoing efforts on the NATO missile shield.
Raytheon has been offering the SM-3 once more, and is offering its integration inside Sylver A70.
More interestingly, it is studying how to integrate MK41 strike length in the combat system of the Type 45 to offer SM-3 for it.
Was the NATO shield to proceed and involve the UK via T45, the MK41 would be a real bargain.
Once the MK41 was eventually integrated, it would be possible not only to use the Anti-ballistic SM-3, but to readily embark the Tomahawk, more interestingly.
A win-win. Only MBDA would not be happy, as their Aster 45 would not proceed in that case.
So…
plenty to go around, just needs all to be installed.
And where will the cut-off between t23 and t26 be… all of the former kept,or only the ASW specials kept and the rest, not-so-special ASW versions replaced like for like with t26s.
… that will take 10 years, or more?
But having said that, never heard a bad word about the SeaWolf performance, so long live & good health
@elizzar
The Phalanx 1B has a 1550 rounds magazine. I don’t know the size of the bursts, as i’ve found figures ranging from 60 to 200 rounds for each burst.
The Phalanx Block 0 took two men 10 to 30 minutes to change the magazine. Block 1 greatly reduced reload time to less than five minutes by using a pre-loaded ammunition cassette. 1A and 1B are the same if not better.
To reload RAM/SEA RAM you have to fit a new launcher canister into each slot of the launcher, and i found two images of it being done: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-warfare/12628-littoral-combat-ship-analysis-2.html
It does not appear simple, nor fast. But i don’t have available any official time estimate for the procedure.