# Close in Weapons System (CIWS)



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Mar 2007)

Ok my question is, could we not make a system that combines both the 20mm Vulcan (I like what the Block 1B brings to the table for anti FIAC) and RAM. Thoughts?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Mar 2007)

I'm pretty sure that the USN LHA's or LHD's have both....Tarawa and Wasp-class if I recall accurately.  

RAM gets integrated into the ship'd defensive suite, while Phalanx operates as a standalone.

I don't think anyone has yet put Sea-RAM and Phalanx on the same platform yet....


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Mar 2007)

The Wasp and Tarawa do indeed have both but I am referring to having a common mount for both weapons so only one operator (or the ships systems) would need to control it if needed.


----------



## TAS278 (26 Mar 2007)

I not sure if the upgrades have made it out to the ship but most of the time the only control is the on/off swtich.... 


Then kisten to chainsaw noise for 60seconds. I am sure they could easily add a Whoosh noise too.


----------



## NCS_Eng (26 Mar 2007)

It is certainly possible to slave a RAM launcher to the CIWS mount. Therefor it will make use of the same optics, search and track radar, and rely on control signals from the CIWS computer. The system is designed for that funtionality. 

Its a cost and capabilities issues however. Dollars can be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Mar 2007)

But could you have _both_ the 20mm and the missiles? Something like a quasi Russian style abortion?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> But could you have _both_ the 20mm and the missiles? Something like a quasi Russian style abortion?



Why not?  Land systems have been mounted on naval platforms all the time (just different designations).

Try the 2S6 turret for an example, and rename it N-2-S-6 and you are good to go.


----------



## NCS_Eng (27 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> But could you have _both_ the 20mm and the missiles? Something like a quasi Russian style abortion?



Sorry I wasn't clear, you can certainly have both missiles and guns. The RAM launcher is on a separate mount (without any control systems) and slaved to the CIWS mount.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Mar 2007)

Thanks for the clarification NCS_Eng, next question. If you can slave the RAM to the CIWS, would it be possible to put the RAM forward then to cover that arc in the even the 57 or 76mm are unavailable?


----------



## TAS278 (28 Mar 2007)

There are many platforms that run this system. You can do whatever fits your agenda  It works. Is it completely neccesary? Not really. I really don't see any reason to upgrade. If anything though a better CWIS would have a much better impact.


----------



## NCS_Eng (28 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification NCS_Eng, next question. If you can slave the RAM to the CIWS, would it be possible to put the RAM forward then to cover that arc in the even the 57 or 76mm are unavailable?



Keep in mind that the RAM system can only fire on what it "sees" and in this case, its eyes are located on the CIWS mount. So it would do no good to cover the forward arc of the ship if it can only prosecute targets aft.

Now if we are talking about integrating this hypothetical RAM system with the rest of the ships combat suite, that's a different and much trickier question (and far more expensive in hypothetical bucks).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Mar 2007)

Personally I hope we stick with Block 1B, I like what it can do for us vs the small boat threat, I have yet to see anything that says RAM has the same capability.


----------



## NavyShooter (28 Mar 2007)

CIWS:







RAM:






Now, look at the front of the CIWS again, and see if there's not a little bit of space to each side of the magazine drum.  What if you took, say, a 2-pack of missiles and slipped one the right side (left side as you see it facing you in the picture) of the drum, in a vertical column?  I'm pretty sure they'd fit.  The CIWS should be able to handle the increased weight, and it'd add a heck of a capability, without increasing the platform size.

Thoughts?

Issues?

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Mar 2007)

Would 4 missiles add a lot to capability?


----------



## NavyShooter (28 Mar 2007)

I don't know, truly I don't know much about the RAM system.  

That said, if a bolt-on missile pack could be integrated with the existing system, and give you some extra capability without a great increase in cost, weight, etc, then why not?  I mean, there's not really enoug space on a CPF to drop another CIWS base, is there?  So adding a partial capability to an existing mount might be more practical than trying to fit an entire new mount at some undecided location?

NS


----------



## Neill McKay (29 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Would 4 missiles add a lot to capability?



[not a naval weapons type]Might it be feasible to reload such a mounting between targets?[/not a naval weapons type]


----------



## NCRCrow (29 Mar 2007)

Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile System 

CADS-N-1


----------



## NavyShooter (29 Mar 2007)

Having a couple of missiles on the mount would add a bit to the engagement range (I think the RAM has a bigger range than the CIWS gun) as for reloading, well, reloading the CIWS is a pain.  Depending on the crew you have doing it (and how many to move the ammo boxes) it can be done in about a half hour...excluding the time to get the man aloft done.

Probably much quicker to reload the RAM's, just slide a new missile into the tube, and make the connections?

NS


----------



## NCS_Eng (29 Mar 2007)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Having a couple of missiles on the mount would add a bit to the engagement range (I think the RAM has a bigger range than the CIWS gun) as for reloading, well, reloading the CIWS is a pain.  Depending on the crew you have doing it (and how many to move the ammo boxes) it can be done in about a half hour...excluding the time to get the man aloft done.
> 
> Probably much quicker to reload the RAM's, just slide a new missile into the tube, and make the connections?
> 
> NS



Well, the listed engagement range of the RAM system (UNCLAS) is around 9km. This is farther out than the CIWS, but still quite close to the ship. The system works best when its installed an integrated into the rest of the combat suite. The missiles themselves are IR "Fire and Forget" so illumination is not required. They are directly designed to counter the extremely fast moving (Mach 2+) Russian sea skimmers that the traditional CIWS may have problems with. These Supersonic missiles run a great deal hotter than subsonic and thus can be tracked more easily with an IR system. 

Simply adding two or four missiles to the existing mount poses more problems than you gain in tactical advantage. For one it would throw the weight balance off and require a redesign of the electrical drive motors. Furthermore (and more worrisome) is the fact that the drum above the M61 gun sub-system holds ~1500 rounds of 20mm ammunition, and now you are going to have 4 missiles venting hot exhaust gases near it? 

The idea that the system can be hot reloaded can be rejected off hand as well, I can assure you that it is NOT as simple as loading a new missile in the canister and hooking it up.

I don't believe the Canadian Navy needs the added capability and augmented Pk that the RAM system provides (only my opinion), but if we did the most likely method of procurement would be the removal of the M61 gun system and the addition of a small RAM system in the space it occupied below the Radome. This is already done on other navies as sold as the "SeaRAM" system. Its not quite as effective has having a separate launcher system but its cheaper than intergrating the system in with the ships systems.

And yes, the Russians have been building crazy gun/missile combination weapon systems for years, trading off a less accurate search/tracking and control system for more ordinance downrange. It remains to be seen which method is more effective.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Dec 2014)

Some more modern CIWS systems coming on line. Upgrades to the Phalanx system are something that *we* might consider, given we use this already, while the gigantic Chinese CIWS system is interesting to contemplate (It is also interesting to consider the difference between the Chinese mounting it on a 4000 ton platform while Russian analysts claim it needs to be on a much larger [12,000 ton] platform). Of course the USN is busy working on a laser system to supplement or replace the CIWS....

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/12/new-year-and-new-navy-gatling-guns-for.html



> New year and new Navy gatling guns for USA and China
> china, future, future weapons, navy, technology, united states, weapons
> Facebook  Twitter  linkedin  google  Reddit
> The Phalanx, or CIWS, is an area weapon engineered to use a high rate of fire and ammunition to blanket a given area, thus destroying or knocking threats out of the sky before they reach a ship. The Phalanx CIWS, which can fire up to 4,500 rounds per minute, has been protecting ship platforms for decades.
> ...


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Dec 2014)

Speaking with some USN colleagues, they mentioned how Phalanx was in many cases being supplemented or entirely replaced by SeaRAM, and that Phalanx had also been adapted for use against threats posed by smaller craft. 

In my mind, I see benefits and drawbacks to both systems and am curious if it would be beneficial to employ a combination of both on modern ships.

Anyone care to comment on what path we should be taking for future CIWS? 


…curious to see what thoughts are currently, as most discussion in this thread is 7-8 years old.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2014)

I would suspect that any viable system would force any incoming threat to pass though multiple engagement layers, so a missile like SeaRAM and a CIWS on a ship would (or should) be the last two layers. In an ideal world the incoming threat would pass through an ECM bubble, face interception by a CAP, try to discover the target among multiple decoys and be shot at by longer range systems even before it comes close enough to a ship to be engaged by SeaRAM and then the CIWS.

The laser provides an option to give a ship more chances at an incoming round (or multiple rounds) since unlike a missile launcher or CIWS it has an "unlimited magazine" (so long as the electrical system can provide energy). I actually see an airborne laser platform orbiting overhead being a better solution since it would have a longer line of sight for both the sensors and the weapon, but that would be a long way in the future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2014)

the problem I hear about the Phalanx is that it will consume it's ammo load in a very short time, so you will have a fair bit of downtime, if you have the missiles on the same mount it means they can't be used while the gun is being resupplied. 


This strikes me as a very doable system that adds capability of AD at a minimal cost. Throw in some 35mm mounts


----------



## NavyShooter (30 Dec 2014)

A well drilled CIWS Upload team can upload 1500 rounds in less than 30 minutes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Dec 2014)

Under fire I bet you can do it even faster! Still it can expend that load in 20 seconds or so. How many engagements do they get out of the 1500rd load normally?


----------



## WestCoaster (31 Dec 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> A well drilled CIWS Upload team can upload 1500 rounds in less than 30 minutes.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Under fire I bet you can do it even faster! Still it can expend that load in 20 seconds or so. How many engagements do they get out of the 1500rd load normally?


Highly doubt it would even be considered under fire. At that point, there are other things to worry about than upload that beast. I found the upload/download process very resource intensive (personnel, HERO & HERP precautions, etc). It always boggled my mind that a modification wasn't made to feed the drum from the mag the CIWS sits on top of. This would definitely simplify and quicken things, but beyond my engineering knowledge of whether it is even possible. I know a major mod would have to be done to the system (and done by the manufacturer) itself.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Jan 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> the problem I hear about the Phalanx is that it will consume it's ammo load in a very short time, so you will have a fair bit of downtime, if you have the missiles on the same mount it means they can't be used while the gun is being resupplied.
> 
> 
> This strikes me as a very doable system that adds capability of AD at a minimal cost. Throw in some 35mm mounts



Are stingers capable of knocking out AShM's?

I didn't think they were?

Or are you just referring the mount's layout?


Matthew.


----------



## NavyShooter (1 Jan 2015)

Why add an extra mount when all you need to do is put a rack to put a couple of tubes on the side of a CIWS, and rig a remote trigger into FCER3 and OPS to uncage, and launch.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jan 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> the problem I hear about the Phalanx is that it will consume it's ammo load in a very short time, so you will have a fair bit of downtime, if you have the missiles on the same mount it means they can't be used while the gun is being resupplied.
> 
> 
> This strikes me as a very doable system that adds capability of AD at a minimal cost. Throw in some 35mm mounts



I would not like to be around when this system is actually in operation.  "CHECK BACKBLAST AREA!" comes to mind and this looks like it has the potential to maim more crew than enemy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Jan 2015)

I wonder how the combination of both CIWS and RAM might work?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jan 2015)

WestCoaster said:
			
		

> Highly doubt it would even be considered under fire. At that point, there are other things to worry about than upload that beast. I found the upload/download process very resource intensive (personnel, HERO & HERP precautions, etc). It always boggled my mind that a modification wasn't made to feed the drum from the mag the CIWS sits on top of. This would definitely simplify and quicken things, but beyond my engineering knowledge of whether it is even possible. I know a major mod would have to be done to the system (and done by the manufacturer) itself.



I was thinking of another Falkland type engagement as that is the closest modern model to use and I as I recall the engagements came in in waves. You might be in the middle of reloading when the next wave comes in. I find the reloading odd as well, seems the designers were optimistic about the length of engagement. Also could be they were restrained by weight and/or costs 

the missile system I pictures is straight off the Mistral class. Certainly is not a Anti-ship missile defence, but a good way to arm ships against air attack that might not otherwise have any defence.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jan 2015)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder how the combination of both CIWS and RAM might work?



I would be curious to know this as well…but not on the same mount. No point complicating something (reminds me of the MMEV of yesteryear…) 

I was thinking more of 1 x SeaRAM to engage targets, and a CIWS mount for last ditch efforts and use against small boats. Would this extra layer be of any added value?


----------

