# Phalanx for Base Defense?



## NavyShooter (27 Oct 2006)

Hey folks,

Came across this article:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002430.html

Kind of a neat idea....use a CIWS (Close In Weapons System) for base defense from mortar attacks on bases.

I don't know what kind of size of base we have in 'stan....but would one of these (with about a 2KM radius of protection) provide some defense for our folks?







If I'm outta line, let me know.

NS


----------



## COBRA-6 (27 Oct 2006)

could be usefull for some of the regularly-targeted FOBs if they really work...


----------



## Korus (27 Oct 2006)

I'd just be worried about where the rounds land when it gets set off....


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Oct 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> I'd just be worried about where the rounds land when it gets set off....


I was just thinking that.  The Phalanx is pretty good at sea, because all those rounds that miss (and many do, why else would it have such a high rate of fire?) well, they just hit water.  In any land based engagement, unless you're in Antarctica, all bets are off, I'd say.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Oct 2006)

I'd be a little worried about an automated weapon system spitting out that kind of firepower when I have people out there.  But then I'm paranoid.


----------



## 3rd Herd (27 Oct 2006)

C-RAM

Air Defense Artillery Takes On New Counter-Rockets, Artillery and Mortars Intercept Mission
by CPT Scott L. Mace 

Land-Based Phalanx Weapon System​  
With hostile rocket and mortar attacks inflicting significant casualties in Iraq, the Army is moving forward with testing to support the counter-rockets, artillery and mortars (C-RAM) mission. The C-RAM mission represents a revolutionary approach to countering insurgent activities by intercepting rockets, artillery and mortar rounds in the air prior to impact; thereby, reducing or eliminating any damage they might cause.  The Army is integrating existing sensors, systems and command and control capabilities to provide a C-RAM capability that units can easily incorporated into forward operating base and logistics supply area defenses.  The C-RAM systems, once deployed, have the potential to save lives and reduce injuries from rocket, artillery and mortar attacks 

The weapon system selected as the near-term C-RAM interceptor is the Army’s Land-Based Phalanx Weapon System, a reconfigured version of the U.S. Navy’s Phalanx Close-In Weapon System.  The Navy uses its sea-based system as a point-defense weapon to protect the fleet from low-flying cruise missiles and other air threats. The Phalanx was first tested for C-RAM missions in November 2004 and did so well that C-RAM production was moved forward. The first test of the Army-configured C-RAM system took place in April 2005 at Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz.

The Army made slight reconfigurations to the Navy system to integrate it into the Army’s ground defense mission and command and control structure. The 20mm, six-barrel Phalanx gun system and its search and track radars are trailer-mounted to allow movement to key military sites. Figure 1 shows the basic layout. The Phalanx is familiar to some air defenders because it is similar to the Vulcan air defense gun system, which was the mainstay of divisional air defense battalions in the 1970s through the early 1990s. 

The Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) system is one of the technologies used to integrate the C-RAM intercept system with other presently fielded Army and joint service systems. The FAAD C2 software and hardware solution allows the C-RAM system to communicate freely with existing air defense sensors and other Army battle command systems.  The C-RAM unit uses the Air and Missile Defense Work Station (AMDWS) to pass information to other Army battle command systems.  Put together, these tools will allow soldiers working in engagement operations cells to easily integrate a C-RAM battery into the defense of a forward operating base.

Colonel Paul McGuire, the C-RAM Intercept Task Force leader, said “The deployment of this weapon system and its integration into a holistic approach to defeat rocket, artillery and mortar threats will change the face of operations on the battlefield and will force the insurgents, currently operating in Iraq, to seriously consider their activities when attacking deployed forces.  The enemy will be forced to change his tactics and potentially make mistakes that will allow coalition forces to react quickly and defeat his threats.”  

The first battery to perform the C-RAM mission is C Battery, 5th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery, a separate Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle force that has been testing the C-RAM system and perfecting C-RAM battle drills for several months.  Charlie Battery Soldiers are now the tip of the spear in C-RAM development and fielding. 

Charlie Battery will be augmented with Navy personnel who have many years of experience on the basic system to make up the first C-RAM Intercept Battery.  Navy personnel are already an integral part of the battery’s daily operation. Sailors quickly pass their expertise from years of maintaining and operating this system to Soldiers.  The Soldiers received training from the Navy in several locations across the United States to facilitate the operational timeline. Soldiers have been firing the weapon system and intercepting mortars and rockets regularly.  Their training culminated in a mission rehearsal exercise in Yuma. With help from the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Air Defense Artillery, during the evaluation, the mission rehearsal exercise was successfully completed, and Charlie Battery is considered trained for any potential C-RAM mission.  

Collateral damage has always been a major concern whenever combat developers considered high-speed gun systems as a solution to the rocket, artillery and mortar  threat. In urban terrain or heavily populated areas, outgoing rounds might prove as dangerous—if not more dangerous—than incoming rounds. To minimize collateral damage, the C-RAM interceptor will fire rounds that self-destruct (High-Explosive Incendiary Tracer Rounds-Self Destruct) when they miss their targets. These rounds have a very low dud rate, and studies show that residue from self-destructed rounds cause minimal damage. 

Chief Petty Officer Jonny S. Schurch, the Navy’s lead chief assigned to Charlie Battery said the system would be even more effective except for safety measures imposed to prevent friendly casualties and collateral damage. 

As First Sergeant Stephen D. Kinzer observed, the Phalanx system will have to prove itself in new combat environments, where it has never been deployed.  Time will tell how environmental factors may affect the intercept system once it arrives in a theater of operations.

Charlie Battery continues to operate on an aggressive schedule, racing an accelerated timeline, to bring the intercept capabilities online and prepare for a potential deployment.  Every day that goes by before we deploy the system is another day service members have to survive rocket or mortar attacks without C-RAM protection. The sooner the C-RAM system is deployed, the sooner Soldiers, Sailors, airmen and Marines on forward operating bases will sleep safer and wake more rested for the next day’s missions.  The overall goal is to save lives and make the cost of firing mortars at U.S. soldiers in Iraq too high for the insurgency to pay.  Soldiers of Charlie Battery have accepted the mission of saving Soldiers’ lives and are prepared to execute their new mission.



Captain Scott L. Mace commands C Battery, 5th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery, the Army’s first C-RAM battery. He was also the officer in charge of the Army’s first Air Defense Airspace Management (ADAM) Cell. The author would like to thanks COL Paul McGuire for his assistance on this article.  

Source: http://airdefense.bliss.army.mil/adamag/June%202005/C-RAM.htm

Anyone know of the deployment results ?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

If nothing else it would be and encouragement to the locals to stay out of the engagement/safety zone.  I can only imagine that that must be more than 5 km if the engagement range is 2 km.

Doesn't sound like an appropriate measure for an urban environment.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If nothing else it would be and encouragement to the locals to stay out of the engagement/safety zone.  I can only imagine that that must be more than 5 km if the engagement range is 2 km.
> 
> Doesn't sound like an appropriate measure for an urban environment.


I would say farther.  The engagement range is much much less than how far those projectiles would travel if they missed (and as I said, most would).

The problem is that if you have to separate from the locals, then you are losing the moral plane war (not "moral" as in ethical, but the non-tangible part of it).  Anyway, I digress...

(edited because I typed something in that sounded like a 13 year old typed it).  Sorry.


----------



## kincanucks (27 Oct 2006)

_To minimize collateral damage, the C-RAM interceptor will fire rounds that self-destruct (High-Explosive Incendiary Tracer Rounds-Self Destruct) when they miss their targets. These rounds have a very low dud rate, and studies show that residue from self-destructed rounds cause minimal damage. _


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

Thanks kincanucks  :-[


----------



## warrickdll (27 Oct 2006)

There are many safety issues, but perhaps technology can be extremely useful in defining arcs and no-fire zones. Other technologies can help determine best placement. And, not every deployment will have the same restrictions.


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Oct 2006)

Cool, I did a bit of searching on the web, and it seems that the US has been deploying these since somewhere around last summer as experimental units, and now have a bunch done up.  (open source)

Fits on a tractor trailer, completely self contained!  Drive it to where it's needed, flash it up, and you're good to go.

Nice to see in the pics though that it's still painted Ships Side Gray, instead of some green or tan colour!

NavyShooter


----------



## geo (27 Oct 2006)

Hmmm.... depending on technology to keep your ass out of the fire is not always a good thing.  Already, the local population is upset at NATO for shooting & bombing Friendly Fire incidents - do you think this will correct - I don't.


----------



## kincanucks (27 Oct 2006)

If I was a betting man I would say hello to the next air defence weapon of the Canadian Forces.  Since we can't engage the shooter how about we concentrate on engaging the shot.


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Oct 2006)

With the self-destruct rounds, the danger to the local area will be lessened, but you're right, the populace will not be thrilled I'm sure.

NS


----------



## geo (27 Oct 2006)

self destructing rounds..... on the assumption that they work as advertized..............

How many times will defence contractors tell you everything?
(and you believed him?)


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Oct 2006)

True, and even if you have say, a failure rate of less than 1%...with a Phalanx, that's still a HECK of a lot of rounds!   :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet: :bullet:


 :warstory:


----------



## geo (27 Oct 2006)

(esp if you happen to live downrange)


----------



## Petard (3 Nov 2006)

I think the article is about a year old.
The US is going ahead with developing it further, and deploying more
Evidence of effectiveness?

a bit more info
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm


----------



## Marauder (12 Nov 2006)

I thought the Isrealis were working on a laser-based system along the same line for defeating incoming rounds by superheating them to the point of detonation? Can't find the reference right this second, but I have heard of it.


----------



## COBRA-6 (12 Nov 2006)

oh hell yes!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4897647549985392214&hl=en


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Nov 2006)

It's my understanding that the USN is also upgrading to a bigger version and they have quite a few of these around, would be good against UAV's also.


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Nov 2006)

It's my understanding that the upgrade uses the same gun, chassis, radar and electronics cabinets....

Not a bad little video....I like the "firecracker" sound of the rounds doing the Self Detonation at the end of their trace...pretty cool.

NS


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Nov 2006)

Looks like they have some sort of RWS thermal-optical sight on the port side of the mount. 

How would our guys love to take a shot at a Sperwer with that!!


----------



## Jaydub (18 Nov 2006)

I read about this in the Vancouver Sun.  I believe that this is quite possibly one of the stupidest ideas that I ever heard.  The CIWS is used to shoot down Missiles and close-in Aircraft.  The Targets are much bigger, and are tracked on RADAR for miles before being handed over to CIWS.

Mortars and Artillery rounds are too small and only stay in the air for seconds.  The Phalanx may be able to acquire under optimum conditions, and if they knew exactly when and where the rounds were coming from.

I believe the Phalanx could be effectively employed for ground engagements, although it's a pretty ridiculous amount of firepower for what it would be engaging.

It's too valuable of a resource for the Navy to stripped from Ships and used like this.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Nov 2006)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> It's too valuable of a resource for the Navy to stripped from Ships and used like this.



I agree, because those ships alongside in Halifax and/or Victoria face a daily threat of sea-skimming missiles coming along.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I agree, because those ships alongside in Halifax and/or Victoria face a daily threat of sea-skimming missiles coming along.



We could throw that comment back when it came to tanks and the M109s yet we never did. In fact most sailors I know in the past approved of having tanks, even the slowest Bosn could grasp an army without tanks was dumb. Yet the boys in green still have no concept of what we do and what we need and your post clearly illustrates this!


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Nov 2006)

OK, I was indeed being very sarcastic, but my point was that there are ships that are no longer used, no?  Do they not have Phalanx on them?  (This is a real question, not rhetorical, I honestly don't know...)  I would NEVER agree that it would be a good idea to rid the ships of them.  In this case, since we aren't buying any Phalanxes, put them to good use somewhere.  Having said that, perhaps buying new Phalanxes would be the preferred solution?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> OK, I was indeed being very sarcastic, but my point was that there are ships that are no longer used, no?  Do they not have Phalanx on them?  (This is a real question, not rhetorical, I honestly don't know...)  I would NEVER agree that it would be a good idea to rid the ships of them.  In this case, since we aren't buying any Phalanxes, put them to good use somewhere.  Having said that, perhaps buying new Phalanxes would be the preferred solution?



The only ship I know that no longer uses her CIWS is Huron and I have no doubts the West Coast boys have already put it to good use as for spares or as for training. Buying addition would be the preferred option rather then robbing peter to pay paul.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Nov 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Buying addition would be the preferred option rather then robbing peter to pay paul.


Agreed


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Nov 2006)

I wonder if an option could not be to adopt the Oerlikon 35mm (if any are still around) and combine them with a CIWS radar.....


----------



## geo (18 Nov 2006)

While many have said we need a system to knock down mortar shells and rockets from falling onto our base camps.... do we really need such a beastie?  From those friends I have that have gone thru Kabul and Kandahar, the odds of being hit by anything shot in the general direction of the camp are somewhere between slim and none.....


----------



## kincanucks (18 Nov 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if an option could not be to adopt the Oerlikon 35mm (if any are still around) and combine them with a CIWS radar.....



I believe the idea behind a 'Base Defence' system is to get as many rounds as possible in the air in the shortest possible time resulting in a 'wall of lead' and the 35mm does not have a sufficient rate of fire to do that, 1100 rds/min vs 4500 rds/min but then again the US is also looking at a 35mm Skyshield to counter the threat too (not just against mortars) and have 'borrowed' a couple of 35mm guns from us.  In the end Canada will probably buy some of the C-RAM systems (2 or 3).


----------



## kincanucks (18 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> While many have said we need a system to knock down mortar shells and rockets from falling onto our base camps.... do we really need such a beastie?  From those friends I have that have gone thru Kabul and Kandahar, the odds of being hit by anything shot in the general direction of the camp are somewhere between slim and none.....



The ones I have been talking to say that rocket and mortar attacks are very real and deadly threat in Kandahar.  The amount of attacks reported in the news and the amount of actual attacks vary by a great deal. The attacks are such a regular event that many atakcs don't even get reported. So if I was in Kandahar and freaking rockets and/or mortars were regularly falling on my camp then I would want some kind of defence system to counter that threat and fuck the goats that may be grazing downrange.


----------



## geo (18 Nov 2006)

Kincanucks......
You're telling me that there are tons of rocket and mortar attacks - so many in fact that a large number never get reported.  That they are so commonplace that they get ignored.
You tell me that the threat is real and deadly... can you tell me, in the last 12 months, how many mortar/rocket attacks have managed to draw blood - of any nationality?

Here is how my friend put it:

"_The airfield is roughly 5 km long and 2 km wide.  That gives an area, very roughly, of 10,000,000 m2.  If the lethal radius of the rockets in use is 12.5 m (the figure from Janes Ammunition Handbook, if it matters), that gives a danger area of about 490 m2 per rocket.   Round that up to 500 m2 for ease of calculation and it becomes apparent that it would take about 20,000 rockets to cover the whole base. At the present rate of them actually landing on the base (three in the past two months), it would take 1,111 years for everything on base to get hit.  The impact points are however totally random, but you would have to spend over 500 years here before the odds turned against you. You're safer here than trying to cross Yonge Street in Toronto on a Friday evening."_


----------



## Petard (18 Nov 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if an option could not be to adopt the Oerlikon 35mm (if any are still around) and combine them with a CIWS radar.....



This using the "old" twin 35 was looked at earlier this year, it was quite a scramble to find people that were relatively current to operate the system effectively. Goes to show what a fast skill fade there is associated with many of our modern fighting tools.

As for Geo's comments that it doesn't seem like the mortar/rocket attacks are that significant a threat, I would say CRAM is  "an ounce of prevention" maybe?


----------



## geo (18 Nov 2006)

Petard..... still, no one has answered me on an earlier question about, what do you do with that wall of lead heading downrange when downrange happens to be downtown Kandahar?

Pert tough winning over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people when they are ducking all our ammo....

But that's just a personal opinion.


----------



## Petard (18 Nov 2006)

This looks like one of those risk assessment problems they'll probably be looking at for years.

In the case of the Land Based Phalanx, the ammunition's self destruct is highly reliable, but I understand your point, it wouldn't take many failed self-destruct rounds to change the locals opinion of the defence they're getting from the system. This would have to be balanced against the real danger that the enemy might get lucky and hit a high payoff target located on the base. It wouldn't take too many successful rocket attacks for the opinions of the deployed force to change about the need for this type of capability

For the Americans it is evident they see the need for the capability, and I don't think they're doing it for the sake of pursuing technology or just to keep a contract going. Considering it takes so long to get the "bugs" worked out, in particular air space coordination, I think now is a good time to develop this system. These free flight rockets are a low risk and low tech investment for the enemy with the potential for considerable return. Considering what happened this past summer in the Lebanon, I see the possibility of this rocket/mortar threat growing, unless there's something available, quickly, to counter it.


----------



## geo (18 Nov 2006)

American efforts are presently based on their experience in Iraq - not Kandahar/Bagram.  Many will say that they have taken a "troops 1st" with respect to winning "hearts & minds".  Airstrikes on suspected convoys & villages are regularly reported by the media.  Selfdestructing munitions.... don't.  If you look at news broadcasts from Lebanon right now, there are all sorts of stories about submunitions being found everywhere, making large swaths of southern Lebanon inhabitable by the displaced population.....

Once they get the bugs out, we can talk about this again.....


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2006)

On the other hand geo, doesn't Petard make a useful point? Right now the threat from mortars and rockets might be manageable in Afghanistan so that this Phalanx/C-RAM system might be over-kill.
But, as has been demontrated with Tamil suicide vests, RPGs, IEDs and dug in defenses (not to mention ATGMs) once something is found to work then people tend to copy a successful play.  

While the military verdict is still out on the effectiveness of all those missiles into Israel, the political effectiveness can't be argued. The positively impacted Hezbollah/Shiite morale and negatively impacted the morale of the fence-sitters.  Interestingly they seem to have had a negative economic effect on Israel but perversely a positive morale effect.  The Israeli government didn't give up the fight because of domestic pressure.  It gave up because of pressure from the international fence-sitters.  This doesn't take into account the Qana effect of shielding these missiles with civilians and "forcing" the Israelis to target civilians as collateral damage in order to counter the threat leading to all these claims of disproportionality.  All-in-all "katyushas" (107s and 122s) were a successful play.

If something like C-RAM can be used to negate the Katyushas without having to blow up apartment buildings a villages then that would be a plus I would think.  

During the Cold War it was considered an acceptable risk to have shrapnel and unexploded nukes fall in the Canadian Arctic because of the low population densities.  Better to have shrapnel and unexploded rounds contaminate a patch of open ground, putting the occasional passer-by at risk, than to have the surety that the only way to engage a threat is to kill collocated civilians.

Now might be the time to get the bugs out, even if it isn't appropriate for Afghanistan.


----------



## Jantor (18 Nov 2006)

geo

There was an rocket attack in KAF that wounded ten people in June.

I had posted some questions on this subject in the AD thoughts thread back in April.


This the link to the thread that deals with the attack.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46582.0.html


----------



## geo (18 Nov 2006)

I still look back on the commentary provided by a friend of mine who recently returned. 


> One of the young corporals here was expressing some nervousness after one of the rocket attacks some time ago.  I shared a thought with her that I'd developed whilst lying on my belly in my tent one morning (as either Willy or Joe said many years ago, I couldn't get no lower - me buttons were in the way):
> 
> The airfield is roughly 5 km long and 2 km wide.  That gives an area, very roughly, of 10,000,000 m2.  If the lethal radius of the rockets in use is 12.5 m (the figure from Janes Ammunition Handbook, if it matters), that gives a danger area of about 490 m2 per rocket.   Round that up to 500 m2 for ease of calculation and it becomes apparent that it would take about 20,000 rockets to cover the whole base. At the present rate of them actually landing on the base (three in the past two months), it would take 1,111 years for everything on base to get hit.  The impact points are however totally random, but you would have to spend over 500 years here before the odds turned against you. You're safer here than trying to cross Yonge Street in Toronto on a Friday evening.



The rockets they use for their attacks are simply leant against a rock or board (as a ramp) and then fired off in the base's general direction.  Then, given the approximate age of these soviet era rockets, they are prolly more of a danger to the shooter than they are to us.


----------



## Jaydub (18 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I agree, because those ships alongside in Halifax and/or Victoria face a daily threat of sea-skimming missiles coming along.



That's very witty!   

I don't know about the East Coasters, but most of our West Coast Fleet is at Sea right now.




			
				kincanucks said:
			
		

> I believe the idea behind a 'Base Defence' system is to get as many rounds as possible in the air in the shortest possible time resulting in a 'wall of lead' and the 35mm does not have a sufficient rate of fire to do that, 1100 rds/min vs 4500 rds/min but then again the US is also looking at a 35mm Skyshield to counter the threat too (not just against mortars) and have 'borrowed' a couple of 35mm guns from us.  In the end Canada will probably buy some of the C-RAM systems (2 or 3).



All lot of people tend to think of the Phalanx as a magical wall of lead that will stop anything.  It's an extremely effective Weapon against Missiles and low-flying Aircraft, but it was never meant to be used against Artillery Shells.  If that were the case Ship's would try to use it to shoot down incoming rounds from other Warships.  It would not work.

The Phalanx is simply the wrong tool for the job.


----------



## kincanucks (18 Nov 2006)

Jaydub said:
			
		

> That's very witty!
> 
> I don't know about the East Coasters, but most of our West Coast Fleet is at Sea right now.
> 
> ...



The C-RAM works and we are not talking about using the CIWS as it is.  Read up on the C-RAM first.


----------



## NavyShooter (18 Nov 2006)

Agreed, C-RAM is not CIWS as is found on ships in the fleet. 

The system IS close enough to be remarkably similar though.

One of the interesting parts when I read some of the C-RAM info I've seen on the web was that the estimated reduction in casualties simply due to the detect and warn phases of the engagement was something around 15%.

That means a 15% reduction in casualties even before a round is fired in defence....

I would think that to be worthwhile in and of itself.

NS


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2006)

The key would be to improve our 3D surveillance to track rockets and mortars to the source, and respond with effective counter battery fire. Rather than deal with the problem of spent rounds, perhaps we need to press forward twith this: Attack at the Speed of Light http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/a4ce42fd3f98a010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/2.html

Laser weaponry is moving into the realm of engineering rather than basic physics. As a BTW, a laser defence system should be on an airborn platform for the following reasons:

a. There is a wider field of view for the sensors
b. Direct line of sight, even to the point of being able to engage the shooters directly (Imagine a rocket or mortar shell exploding in the tube)
c. Aircraft have much more available power. A V-22 has over 4,500 kW of engine power, and isn't using it all in cruise. A Leopard tank has @ 600 kW, and a LAV III has @ 260 kW, so any on board laser weapon has a much smaller power supply.
d. Aircraft have crews of highly skilled maintainers. An advanced device like a laser weapon will have the care it needs to remain effective.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Nov 2006)

My personal thoughts on the Phanlax going to Afghanistan is that we are in a warzone. When you are in a warzone it is inevitable that people are going to try to attack you. The warzone we are in right now is one where we also have to wil hearts-and-minds as well as battles, but winning the peoples hearts-and-minds is not going to be accomplished by sending tens of thousands of stray rounds falling on their heads.

Even with the self destructing rounds there would still be duds, and with a gun the fires that many rounds a second (75) there will be an awful lot of duds falling on the citizens we are there to protect. 

So one of the questions would be: "Is stopping a few random mortar rounds that 95% of the time doesnt hit anything worth risking losing the hearts-and-minds of the people, and putting THEM at risk of OUR rounds?"


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Nov 2006)

Why are we thinking that this thing will be fired into a city?  I don't know the lay of the land, but common sense would dictate that a mortar attack would come from the hills surrounding the area, not a built up one.  So if there is some fallout on the hillside from the direction that the round came from, what is the issue?  
Geo, your argument that "it's a big area, you probably won't get hit" isn't the kind that is going to make anyone feel too great.  Eventually the bad guys are going to get lucky, and I for one don't want to see that happen.  

Anyone know if the unit has a secondary targeting capability, to extrapolate the trajectory and engage the point of origin in a counter battery capacity?  Especially if the rounds were explosive, it might have a decent beaten zone or area saturation effect.


----------



## Petard (19 Nov 2006)

I have not seen anything yet that backs up the assumption that there is a dud rate that is significant enough that thousands, or even hundreds, of rounds will fall into a no-fire area. There are ways to mitigate the possibility of duds, whatever number they may be, such as angles of engagement.
The other assumption I often hear is that the system works in isolation, that it gets flicked on and automatically shoots anything flying within it's arcs, it doesn't.
Phalanx needs something to cue it to what to look for, and to what to leave alone.
Paired to a system, like this one
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/surveillance/ericsson/
that can do weapon locating, as well as air surveillance, I think would go a long way in building an even more effective countermeasure


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Nov 2006)

I agree with Petard. The chances of a round failing to self-destruct are very remote. I do not know how the 20mm works, but other rounds such as the 40mm that blew themselves up did so by using the tracer element in the base to initiate the explosive train at a fixed time after firing. 

The difficult part of what we used to call counter battery is locating the weapon and responding quickly enough to destroy it before it can move. That is a function of a marriage of the locating devices used, the command and control system and the means of retaliation. All must work smoothly and seamlessly or we might as well be back in the Second World War doing manual collection and collation with the dread SCATS and HBHS and the rest. (SCAT = Shelling Connection Activity Trace, HBHS = Hostile Battery History Sheet)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Nov 2006)

Even if the rounds self-destruct in the air, you will still have debris falling on to people.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Nov 2006)

Yes indeed, that is if people are underneath the rounds when they self-destruct. This sort of thing used to happen to civilians during bombing raids by both sides in the Second World War, without significant casualties resulting from a much larger weight of rounds fired. 

In my opinion there are greater technical issues to be solved that may be show stoppers, not the least of which is the use of a point defence (that is a ship) weapon system to defend an area target (in terms of the range of the 20mm). Maybe what we have here in microterms is something similar to the problems of the American ballistic missile defence system, that is to locate, identify, engage and destroy a beer bottle sized target, well okay a quart, in under half a minute.

The estimate would make fascinating reading, at least for gunners, who were described in the seventeenth or eighteenth century as having curious minds. I guess somethings never change.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Nov 2006)

> ...gunners, who were described in the seventeenth or eighteenth century as having curious minds....



"curious" as in investigative or "curious" as in peculiar?  ;D

If I remember rightly your fellow ordnancers in the engineering department were defined as being either "mad, Methodist or married".


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Nov 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The chances of a round failing to self-destruct are very remote.



A 95% reliability rate would be a reasonable one for rounds to self destruct. But at 75 rounds per second firing for 10 seconds would still mean about 40 rounds (37.5 exactly) which are explosive falling into areas which could very well be populated.. especially if they are stationed at KAF. 

But whatever happens is something yet to be seen, and hopefully the right decision will be made... whatever it is.


----------



## Petard (19 Nov 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> A 95% reliability rate would be a reasonable one for rounds to self destruct.



That figure 95% is based on what? It looks suspiciously SWAG'd to me.
In any case don't overlook the point that the weapon systems can be situated so they have engagement arcs in the vertical as well as horizontal plane to avoid firing towards civilian occupied areas, although it might very well mean potential engagements can happen close to areas that are occupied by military forces.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Nov 2006)

Petard said:
			
		

> That figure 95% is based on what? It looks suspiciously SWAG'd to me.


I got that figure from a facts/figures site after googling. Not exactly "swag'd." 
But like I said before, Its still a lot of rounds that could potentially land in populated areas, so lets just hope the right decision is made. Im not saying what the right decision is, because I dont know what it is.


----------



## Petard (19 Nov 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> I got that figure from a facts/figures site after googling. Not exactly "swag'd."



How about posting a link to this facts/figures site then?


----------



## FireMission (19 Nov 2006)

Too bad the twin 35mm and Skyguards are not being considered to be deployed.  A troop of 8 guns and 4 Skygd Mk IIs could provide oustanding coverage, with the CIWS filling in the Gaps.

The Twin 35s also use HEITP and have a range of 4Km, vice the 2KM.  The Mk II Skyguards have an excellent sensor surveillance system as well, 

I was the last Tp Comd of 129 Bty, 4 AD Regt, Lahr Germany, so I do know of what I speak.  Unfortunately, they are all parked now.  A real shame.  Not the perfect system - but then any time you have an 80% solution is a good day.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Nov 2006)

Some good facts about the land based Phalanx (including percentage of successfully self-destructing rouds) can be found on the attached link. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Land_based_version

The land based system section is near or at the bottom of the page.


----------



## Petard (19 Nov 2006)

wikipedia? 
oh well, in that case it can't be wrong :

I'll do some checking with some more reliable sources than that and get back


----------



## midget-boyd91 (20 Nov 2006)

Don't bother, just let it go. Im not on here to argue about something this silly.


----------



## Petard (20 Nov 2006)

Fine by me

Just consider though that a dud rate as you've interpreted is not how I think those statistics were meant to be, but that wikpedia information doesn't say either way.
By that I mean the dud rate of 95% that they give, to me, does not mean if you fire a 100 rounds, 5 of them won't work, each individual firing is an independent event. Sort of like, if the weather report says 60% chance of rain, it means given those conditions the chances are better than even that it will rain, not that it will rain for 60% of the day, and 40% of that day it won't. So for each individual firing it is at least 95% likely to work, tells me the round is more than likely going to self destruct. But then again using undefined data all kind of fits in with that old saying there are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Not sure where the information available on this self destruct lies. ;D 

In any event I don't think the dud rate is that important, there are ways to work around even a 95% reliability so that people are comfortable with the risk assessment. I'm just taken aback by the generally negative outlook on this system, and so many people are eager to run it down, and I'm not just talking about on this forum either.

Land Based Phalanx system is only one part of a larger system, that, IMO, has considerable potential beyond the intercept role so many are fixated on.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2006)

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> Don't bother, just let it go. Im not on here to argue about something this silly.



You decided to use wikkipedia as the source of your claims. Either deal with the consequences of that or provide something more credible.

If there is any doubt in you mind as to why your source is not credible ,watch this:

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=72347


----------



## Gunnerlove (10 Dec 2006)

Skyshield tried against Qassam
Lockheed Martin has modified Oerlikon Contraves' Skyshield 35 mm Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction (AHEAD) air-defence system to better deal with Katyusha and Qassam rockets.A Lockheed Martin representative told Jane's that in a recent series of laboratory tests, the system successfully neutralised 122 mm Katyusha warheads and an exact copy of the Palestinian indigenous Qassam rockets. 

http://jdw.janes.com - 06 December 2006 

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=3522&lang=3

There are better options, additionally we have "upgraded" our CIWS's to block "B", we have not purchased new units and as such we have no spare systems to send anywhere.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (10 Dec 2006)

I've read through this thread with quite a bit of interest, and if I may, have the following points to add.

WRT the blind/dud rate for the rounds fired against mortars/rockets, we all know that the 'quoted' blind rate for Cluster bombs has resulted in numerous civpop casualties, nevermind what the actual rate. I tend to agree with the argument that alot of lead flying downrange, with civilian settlements 'in the trace', probably won't engender the population to our aims.

The last time I was in Kandahar (Oct), indirect fire atks had dropped considerably from the almost daily occurrences they were in the summer, to almost nil. At least, we weren't attacked during the time I was there (2 weeks, I know, short tourer). This was not due to some newfangled high-tech star-wars-ish technology, but plain aggressive patrolling on the part of the FP elements at KAF. Obviously winter also had an effect, but I believe that it is better to deter Timothy Taleban by aggressive patrolling and dominating the ground around KAF than parking a FOGB gun on a trailer with a radar attached and hoping for the best. 

But on the otherhand, I don't want to seem too much of a Luddite, and so, if technology can keep troops safe (including myself), then I am all for it. And if said trailermounted-wonderweapon keeps me from conducting said patrols and domination of ground, all the better. But it does have to be balanced.

My 2 pence anyways. Back to my lurking....


----------



## geo (10 Dec 2006)

was reading in the paper today that the CF's XMass road show was in KAF over the last week..... for the occasion the TB came out of hiding for two rocket attacks during the show..... critics!


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Jan 2007)

Saw this Phalanx story on strategypage.

Phalanx Fitted With Laser and Passes Test

January 11, 2007: Responding to an Israeli search (and offers of quick sales) for anti-rocket/ mortar systems, the company (Raytheon) that makes the Phalanx anti-ship missile system, has adapted a Phalanx to use a laser instead of a 20mm automatic cannon. The Phalanx radar can spot incoming object at up to 5,000 meters, and destroy them at up to 2,000 meters with its 20mm cannon. But by using an off-the-shelf solid state laser, Raytheon was able to detect and destroy a 60mm mortar shell (which is smaller than any current rocket) at  a range of "over 500 meters". The laser used can be powered by a generator, or commercial (off the grid) electrical power. Previous high powered lasers required a chemical energy system that was bulky, messy and expensive. If this modified Phalanx system is reliable, they could be used to protect towns and villages in areas, like southern Israel, where Palestinians fire home made rockets from Gaza. While the 20mm cannon has a longer range, the ammo is more expensive, and the shells will eventually come down in Gaza, where they may hit civilians. Then there's the expense. Even second hand Phalanx systems cost over a million dollars each. New ones can cost ten times that, although the price with the laser, instead of the complex, six barreled 20mm cannon, would be lower (perhaps $6 million each). The laser version would also be lighter, weighing no more than three tons.


----------



## kincanucks (15 Jan 2007)

An update - no counter artillery or mortar system will be procured by DND and therefore no system will be deployed to Afghanistan.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Jan 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Saw this Phalanx story on strategypage.
> 
> Phalanx Fitted With Laser and Passes Test



That is what I was thinking would happen over in the "Portable Nuke Generator" thread.  Geez, I should be a weapon designer.


----------



## DirtyDog (27 Apr 2007)

I heard from a USN friend of mine that he's hearing of these things holding off some pretty wicked mortar attacks.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Apr 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I heard from a USN friend of mine that he's hearing of these things holding off some pretty wicked mortar attacks.



In what area of operations?


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Apr 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> In what area of operations?



Somewhere in Iraq.... he was light on specifics.

Possibly the Green Zone, but i have no idea..... I messaged him to see if he has any more info to share (simply out of curiousity) but I havn't heard back.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Apr 2007)

Keep us posted.


----------



## Fraser.g (17 May 2007)

Here is a link from Michael Yon about the CIWZ deployed in Iraq with audio and a vid link.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/mystery-audio-i.htm

GF


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2007)

Here is an alternative idea which could be adapted to destabilize or detonate incoming warheads with a much lower "downrange" effect on the civil population. Smaller versions might work for AFV's without the danger active defence systems like ARENA or ERA pose to dismounted troops:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/7bd4999bc5b82110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html



> *A Chopper Shield
> *
> Rena Marie Pacella
> 
> ...


----------

