This weapon system has been around for a long time. Tungsten bullets (lots of kinetic energy). The stream of bullets is tracked by radar to continuously adjust the aim.

“Britain's most powerful warship has been bolstered with a formidable armament system capable of  automatically tracking and destroying threats and shooting down enemy aircraft at short-range.

HMS Queen Elizabeth will boast three Phalanx 1B computer-controlled guns, which can empty a 1,550-round magazine at 4,500 rounds-per-minute against a range of threats on land and at sea.

The technology provides an early warning of attacks and has already been installed on all US Navy surface combatant ships, alongside vessels belonging to more than 20 allied nations…”

https://mol.im/a/6699565

Cute little carrier they have there.

It's a good start. Phalanx is a last-ditch weapon, given the changes in missile technology, it's only good for hitting large flying debris from destroyed engagements and small craft. Hopefully they'll install a couple of RIM-116 RAM launchers or similar to augment the CIWS.

Yes, I question how effective it is against the newer supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles.

RAM is really the minimum. They should be putting in VLS modules to launch ESSMs.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
It's a good start. Phalanx is a last-ditch weapon, given the changes in missile technology, it's only good for hitting large flying debris from destroyed engagements and small craft. Hopefully they'll install a couple of RIM-116 RAM launchers or similar to augment the CIWS.

Impressive weapons.

We used to spend a lot of time working inside the envelope for CIWS. In theory the tracking system could trace and arc of fire through us, stop shooting as it covered us, and keep shooting on the other side. In theory.

I was grateful that we didn't have to find out, because an error wouldn't have been survivable.

I've been airborne nearby when they fired, and it was impressive.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
RAM is really the minimum. They should be putting in VLS modules to launch ESSMs.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
It's a good start. Phalanx is a last-ditch weapon, given the changes in missile technology, it's only good for hitting large flying debris from destroyed engagements and small craft. Hopefully they'll install a couple of RIM-116 RAM launchers or similar to augment the CIWS.

No need for VLS, ESSM can be fired out of a variety of launchers including the old Sea Sparrow box launchers. It's quite a versatile and lethal package, more remarkable considering how bungled nearly every weapons acquisition has become lately.

So what is the benefit of having two towers on the ship? Seems like space where an extra aircraft can be parked.

I miss the late WWII American carrier's that Drachinicel (a great YT channel on WWII and earlier warships) says had AAA guns mounted on every spot big enough to accommodate one.

I think there is again a need for 16" ship main armaments.

quote:

Originally posted by bonfire:
So what is the benefit of having two towers on the ship? Seems like space where an extra aircraft can be parked.

Fields of fire.

One is okay, if you only want to protect half the ship. Of if there's one target from one direction and you're sure that one sea whiz will wack it.

I meant the control towers not the guns.

Not sure when this changed, when I worked on them, it was a 25mm depleted uranium round...

It's a different world. The old AA guns were only good out to a few thousand yards, even the big 5"ers. And they had to fire hundreds, if not thousands or rounds to try and get a hit.

Now the smaller missile (RAM) are good out to 5+ miles. The medium missile (ESSM) is good out to 25-30 miles. Those are the shorter range AA missles. The the longer range ones (not usually installed on carriers) have ranges out to 150 miles. And since they're guided, if a hit by one missile isn't guaranteed, if two or three are launched at a target, they should get at least one hit. AA guns are largely obsolete. Mounts like the Phalanx (radar guided closed loop systems) are the last ones that have any real chance at being effective, and even their days are waning.

And 16" guns where meant for surface attack, land or anti-ship. At best they had a range of 25" We now have missiles that can go 1000+ miles.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I miss the late WWII American carrier's that Drachinicel (a great YT channel on WWII and earlier warships) says had AAA guns mounted on every spot big enough to accommodate one.

I think there is again a need for 16" ship main armaments.

AFAIK, Phalanx has always been 20mm. And yes, used DU shells.

They have 25mm chain guns on some ships that are for close range anti-surface defense (against thing like suicide boats.)

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
Not sure when this changed, when I worked on them, it was a 25mm depleted uranium round...

quote:

AFAIK, Phalanx has always been 20mm. And yes, used DU shells.

Oops, you're right. I have several of the original ammo boxes, and they're all labelled 20mm. My mistake.

I was around the land based version of these, ( CRAM ) in Iraq during the Surge.

To watch these fire, up close and personal, is impressive to say the least. To have one fired over head at about 2:30 in the morning, ( when you're sound asleep ) will shatter your soul!

I used to work on their little 3 - barreled half brother, the M197.

quote:

Originally posted by bonfire:
So what is the benefit of having two towers on the ship? Seems like space where an extra aircraft can be parked.

The reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth has two islands

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I think there is again a need for 16" ship main armaments.

Ship-to-Ship, never again, shore bombardment definitely however, a ship of that size would be such a juicy target to the variety of area-denial weapons currently available that a mission kill or, sinking would be a major loss. I would be in favor of revisiting the development of the Mk71 8" gun, every destroyer and frigate should have one of theses since all engagements will be over-the-horizon and missile costs are only spiraling upward.

quote:

Originally posted by bonfire:
So what is the benefit of having two towers on the ship? Seems like space where an extra aircraft can be parked.

It is my impression that they had not one, but two naval engineers, each one of which designed the ship from one end. IOW, one designed the bit from the bow to just abaft of the tower, and the other one designed the ship from the stern to just for'ard of the tower.

Somehow, they got the principal OAL wrong, and had to join the two sections up with an extra bit inserted in the middle, hence the somewhat odd appearance.

Anyhow, almost a thousand feet long and over 65,000 tons might be small in YOUR navy, but it's pretty large over here, and bigger than anything else on this side of the pond. And a lot newer, too, than anything Les Frogs, the Spamish or the Eyetalians have. And nobody else here actually HAS a carrier.

I was hoping to see Phalanx used on the Somali pirates. Can it be used to target surface vessels?
Think shredded pirate!

An M240 would deal with that much more cheaply.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
I was hoping to see Phalanx used on the Somali pirates. Can it be used to target surface vessels?
Think shredded pirate!

General Nick Parker looks a lot like Leonard Nimoy. Was watching the video out of the corner of my eye and thought I was seeing Spock.

quote:

Originally posted by ARMT Guy:
I was around the land based version of these, ( CRAM ) in Iraq during the Surge.

To watch these fire, up close and personal, is impressive to say the least. To have one fired over head at about 2:30 in the morning, ( when you're sound asleep ) will shatter your soul!

I used to work on their little 3 - barreled half brother, the M197.

My daughter was in Iraq in 2011 as part of her air defense unit. Her job was to track anything incoming and use the CRAM to shoot it down if it could not be identified. She is in the Army NG, but they had Navy personnel to maintain the guns.