# Canada Considering Sending Phalanx to Afghanistan



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2006)

Canada Strips Ships for Afghan War Effort 

November 13, 2006: Noting that the United States sent several Phalanx anti missile systems to Iraq last year, to protect the Green Zone from rocket and mortar attack, Canada is considering taking Phalanx systems from some of its warships, and shipping them to Afghanistan, to protect the Canadian base at Kandahar. The Canadian Phalanx systems will need some new software, which the Americans are apparently willing to provide. 



The American Phalanx anti missile system sent to Iraq, were modified to destroy rockets and mortar shells fired into the Green Zone (the large area in Baghdad turned into an American base). The Phalanx is a 20mm cannon designed to defend American warships, by destroying anti-ship missiles. Phalanx does this by using a radar that immediately starts firing at any incoming missile it detects. The modified versions sent to Iraq, called the C-RAM (Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar) system has had it's software modified to detect smaller objects (like 82mm mortar shells). The original Phalanx, it was found, could take out incoming 155mm artillery shells. This capability is what led to C-RAM. The other modifications include linking Phalanx to the Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar and Q-36 Target Acquisition Radar. When these radars detect incoming fire, C-RAM points toward the incoming objects and prepares to fire at anything that comes within range (about 2,000 meters) of its cannon. C-RAM also uses high explosive 20mm shells, that detonate near the target, spraying it with fragments. By the time these fragments reach the ground, they are generally too small to injure anyone. The Vulcan used 20mm depleted uranium shells, to slice through incoming missiles. The C-RAM, like the Vulcan, fires shells at the rate of 75 per second. Another advantage of C-RAM, is that it makes a distinctive noise when firing, warning people in the Green Zone that a mortar or rocket attack is underway, giving people an opportunity to duck inside if they are out and about. Without C-RAM to stop the incoming shells, they usually land without hitting people. The Green Zone is a big place, but something usually gets damaged during each attack, and sometimes the shells are duds, meaning they remain dangerous until found and removed. It took about a year, from the time an army general demanded that some kind of anti-mortar weapon be found, until the first C-RAMs arrived in Iraq. Tests showed that C-RAM could knock down 70-80 percent of the rockets and mortar shells fired at it.


----------



## Trinity (13 Nov 2006)

Sounds like a bad place to be a bird.


----------



## TCBF (13 Nov 2006)

Be a heck of a thing to have a "Blue On Blue" with.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Nov 2006)

Mind you this is an option that already seems to have been considered and put on the far back burner when talking to our MARS types. Chances of actually happening they put it at a 1 in 10. Think of it...these weapons are designed to lock on targets like SS-N-22s  not mortar and RPG rounds....


----------



## pipesnake (13 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Sounds like a bad place to be a bird.



LOL!


----------



## AmmoTech90 (14 Nov 2006)

Another discussion on this topic, and video of it in action.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52441/post-479346.html#msg479346


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Nov 2006)

Ex-Drag....Talk to some NWT's instead....I've gotten a very different story.

NS


----------



## geo (14 Nov 2006)

IS it just me or does anyone else something wrong here.........
If the System gets powered up and opens fire on a rocket coming from the direction of Kandahar, how much ammunition is going to be sent into the air à la "I shot an arrow into the air, where it fell I know not where".

To date, the rocket and mortar attacks on Kandahar have been more of a nuisance than anything else.  Having a cloud of Phalanx ammo sailing towards the city has the potential to hurt a lot of people.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (14 Nov 2006)

So what will happen when WE fire mortar rounds downrange? Mortar rounds dont have any IFF so the Phanlax wouldnt be able to tell whether or not its friendly or not, wouldnt it shoot ours out of the sky too?


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Nov 2006)

Radar/computer can tell the difference between incoming and outgoing. 

Article.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=phalanx+to+counter+mortar+and+rocket+fire&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf&w=phalanx+counter+mortar+rocket+fire&d=AN9LupIFNioF&icp=1&.intl=us


----------



## Dissident (14 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> If the System gets powered up and opens fire on a rocket coming from the direction of Kandahar, how much ammunition is going to be sent into the air à la "I shot an arrow into the air, where it fell I know not where".



I read somewhere else that the Americains use self destructing ammo to "minimize" casualties in Iraq. No word on what a "minimized" casualty figure would be.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Hmmm -  see... that`s the problem when you're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people you're there to protect.

We have been getting locals to come in and report suspicious activities - making the attacks less effective.

At present, the mortar and rocket attacks are really, really ineffective - other than keeping people awake at night.  Do we really need the darned thing?


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2006)

Is this not more about the preception of protection of the people on the base, rather than actual denial of rocket/mortar impacts? 

The Canadian public gets all twitchy when some columnist starts crying about how insecure they felt on the base when a rocket landed, and suddenly the public thinks and are encouraged by the press that the poor journalists are living in the trenches, shivering in fear because the military isn't protecting them.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

said journalists can always move north to Kabul or east to Islamabad

cause, you know that they would jump all over us if we started shooting up the town with our indiscriminate firing of weapons


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Nov 2006)

Ya it would resemble an Afghan wedding party on steroids. ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Nov 2006)

So whats the Navy going to do? Start swapping out CIWSs before any major deployment or exercise? Or worse comes to worse be deployed without? As a sailor I think the idea sucks supreme butt and would not feel competent or safe being deployed on a ship without.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Nov 2006)

We won't see this happen..... I would be very surprised if we do.

HEY WHY NOT TAKE THE 76mm off of the Huron!!!

Sounds like another good rumour to be passing around.......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Nov 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> We won't see this happen..... I would be very surprised if we do.
> 
> HEY WHY NOT TAKE THE 76mm off of the Huron!!!
> 
> Sounds like another good rumour to be passing around.......



LOL I thought it was already removed.....


----------



## NavyShooter (16 Nov 2006)

I hear they're leaving it on the Huron...so she gets a chance to shoot back in the sinkex next year.

NS


----------



## rmacqueen (16 Nov 2006)

Can't really see this happening.  The mechanics of having to remove it from a ship and then modify it for land use would make it very impractical.  You can't just get out your wrenches and lift it off the ship and plop it on the ground.  It would require a specialized platform, electronics and a power source.  As well, once removed, the ships would have to be modified to fix the area where it had been to make them sea worthy.  We are now talking a lot of $ for something that is really not much more than a nuisance.

If the CF were really considering this idea it would be more cost effective(and probably faster) to order them from the manufacturer where they would already be fitted out for for this type of role.

I know, maybe we could get some and mount them in place of the turret on some of the old Cougars ;D


----------



## NavyShooter (16 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Can't really see this happening.  The mechanics of having to remove it from a ship and then modify it for land use would make it very impractical.  You can't just get out your wrenches and lift it off the ship and plop it on the ground.  It would require a specialized platform, electronics and a power source.  As well, once removed, the ships would have to be modified to fix the area where it had been to make them sea worthy.  We are now talking a lot of $ for something that is really not much more than a nuisance.
> 
> If the CF were really considering this idea it would be more cost effective(and probably faster) to order them from the manufacturer where they would already be fitted out for for this type of role.
> 
> I know, maybe we could get some and mount them in place of the turret on some of the old Cougars ;D



Sorry Mac,  

The CIWS was specifially chosen because it doesn't have any through-deck penetrations.  Removal of the CIWS and associated electronics cabinets from the uppers takes a couple of hours of un-bolting, plus a crane.

There's no holes left in the deck, just some cables to seal up.

The operator consoles are a bit heavier, but not hard to move, as compared to say a Hull and fire-pump.

Removing a CIWS is conceivable, and if you were to visit the Halifax Harbour today, you'd see more than 1 ship there with no CIWS on top....going into or in the midst of refits....the CIWS is removed and sent ashore for re-furbishment.

As for the stand-alone use of it?  Well, the US runs everything they need on a single flatbed trailer...take the electronics cabinets, the mount, the operator console, load it up and off you go....add a generator with the right output, and you're fine.

*shrug*  I mean, to fit them to the ships heading to the gulf in 92 only took them 10 days....

NS


----------



## Old_navy_062 (29 Nov 2006)

Nothing confirmed to date, but talking to the CIWS LCMM indicates that this is not a total pipe dream, and that he is actively looking at all options.  As the navy is currently converting 1A mounts to 1B there are some available.  The process to purchase a weapons system would take longer than our deployment in Afghanistan will last.  There is a new 20mm round that is available to Canada now that has a greatly reduced range.  The information I have on it indicates that the mount with the new software would engage a target at under a 1k yds .


----------



## childs56 (29 Nov 2006)

NO CIWS, and the tanks will never be deployed either, And we won't buy C17's nor Chinooks. 

Heard it all from here, yet it all seems to be comming true.


----------



## tasop_999 (30 Nov 2006)

I am no expert by any stretch on the requirements for Afghanistan, but where exactly do they plan to put a CIWS system? On top of this, aren't RPG and mortar rounds fairly small when compared with a missile? As for going to sea without a CIWS, I wouldn't worry too much because we aren't sending ships into Korean waters just yet.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Nov 2006)

CIWS is more then just defence against missiles, the Block 1Bs are used to counter the small boat threat as well.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Dec 2006)

Was talking with one of the other roundsmen on duty with me tonight.  He is a NWT, in their world there is still some fear in those quarters that this is a definite possibility.  So much so, that there have been a rush of several POs putting their release in so that they could avoid being deployed should it come to pass.  Needless to say, he is pleased with the off shoot of this as there are some projected promotions in the East coast for the upcoming season.  And he is sitting pretty.....


----------



## Old_navy_062 (1 Dec 2006)

I don't think that the current releases from the NW Tech trade have anything to do with possible deployment to Afghanistan.  On both coasts there have been a number of positions opened at FMFs and technicians are taking advantage of their experience and applying.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Dec 2006)

Talk about fools.  Anyone with half a brain would not be putting in their release because of this.

I knew a guy who got out based on the speculation that his ship was the next to go to the gulf.  He was wrong, but he still got out.

I will be extremely surprised if I we see the CWIS sitting in Kandahar, as well as a bunch of No Work Today's sitting around timmies with their shirts off.......


----------



## NavyShooter (1 Dec 2006)

I don't know if you guys have read the open source stuff on this system, but the C-RAM is reportedly hitting 70+ percent of 81mm mortar rounds fired into it's area.  An RPG is similar in size to the Mortar ammo if I recall correctly.

Not to mention the fact that the moment this guy starts shooting, people are going to start ducking and heading for cover.

So, you have better warning for personnel, plus a good chance of shooting down the incoming.

Hey, in the 80's, the Brits were apparently able to engage incoming 5" shells with some of their defensive armament on ships...

As for the Non-Working-Trade having to go overseas, well, that'd probably be a short term thing until the army had some of their guys run through the CIWS course at NAD.

NS


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2006)

I herd a good one today by some combat PO. Ok in quotes:

1) "Were sending NWTs and NESOPS because they are putting the CWIS on trucks"   thats right on trucks. Hmmm ever seen a CWIS PO ? Well its pretty big, to big for a tuck Id gather.

2) "The combat dept would be the best guys to send because we spend our carrers working with guns"  :brickwall: Hmmm sitting in the ops room pushing buttons does not make you over qualified to work with the Army. Ever seen a NESOP on the range ? C7s allot differnt than pushing a button. 

You I just got back from Afghanistan in August, and some of the stuff my fellow saliors come up with is so far out in left feild that I just walk away from the conversation...


----------



## xmarcx (1 Dec 2006)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 1) "Were sending NWTs and NESOPS because they are putting the CWIS on trucks"   thats right on trucks. Hmmm ever seen a CWIS PO ? Well its pretty big, to big for a tuck Id gather.



Yes...except they've already done it, and someone already posted the shiny brochure to prove it!

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Dec 2006)

There is nothing worse than a sailor with opinions on how things should be run in Afghanistan......   

I have been around many army bases, and I have never once heard anything from anyone sporting an army uniform on how the Navy should do things (other than more exercise!)  My point is that our senior rates should be tight lipped and don't offer speculation because many junior personnel will take what they say and run with it.

It drives me nuts, but if they are going to send NESOPs/NWT's then do it, but for crying out loud DON'T speculate because all you have now are gung ho young sailors who are jumping to go over, and you will have those who are so scared they will release (go ahead IMHO that shows lack of dedication anyway). 

I would love to be a fly on the wall when some Killick addresses a RSM as Chief as opposed to sir.....   Although I hear some RCR Warrant Officers would love to be called PO......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Dec 2006)

Dig deep Sub_Guy and I gurantee you will find posts on here from various army types on their concept on how the navy should be ran, what it should have etc. I have seen it all pretty much.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Dec 2006)

I have personally called a MWO "Chief" on an army base, but only after he called me by an army rank....mistake was "mutual" and I have lived to tell the tale.

NS


----------



## geo (3 Dec 2006)

(he was probably deraming ofr the promotion and you caught him off guard)


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Dec 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> Yes...except they've already done it, and someone already posted the shiny brochure to prove it!
> 
> http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf



Wow I guess I stand corrected... My bad, still I wouldnt want some hairy bag NESOP as my fire partner at an FOB


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Dig deep Sub_Guy and I gurantee you will find posts on here from various army types on their concept on how the navy should be ran, what it should have etc. I have seen it all pretty much.



I thought correcting opinionated army guys was your hobby.   Or is it your career? ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Dec 2006)

Sometimes Kirkhill its like talking to a brickwall....


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Dec 2006)

After comming back from Afghanistan even as a Naval person myself I have to wonder what is the Navy all about? What exactly do we do ?

Right now I dont.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Dec 2006)

You are on the wrong ship and maybe the wrong trade if you feel like you are not doing anything. I know me and my shipmates have worked our collective asses off.


----------



## NavyShooter (4 Dec 2006)

I was on CHA on Op Augmentaion....I was in the "goo" before it was fashionable for everyone to come along....

(Actually, we didn't even call it the "goo" on that trip....that seems to have been a ROTO 0 thing....)

We worked our tails off while we were in the NAG, boarding ops for MANY MANY MANY hours a day.  

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Dec 2006)

You mean  when we had our 3 month port visit to Halifax before returning to our home port in Dubai.


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Dec 2006)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I was on CHA on Op Augmentaion....I was in the "goo" before it was fashionable for everyone to come along....



See out here on the west coast we had several tours and buying second homes in Dubai years before the CHA came on the scene!!  So I think you ship was part of the fashionable crowd!   Just shit chucking.

Anyway the main point of my post is to help our fellows out with the acronyms

GOO  - Gulf of Oman
NAG - North Arabian Gulf
CHA - Charlottetown


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2006)

No I mean what exactly is it that the Navy does that gives us existance ? Why do we exist ? When we have people dieing in Afghan and our ships goes south for a cocktail party, thats what makes me wonder what this is all about. Personally I wonder if signing all our boats over to the CCG and giving them the mininmal crew while rolling all the other Naval people into Army trade that can be of some use.

My work rate is high. In fact I would love to have an OS with me to help pick up the slack, the problem is I dont see the point to it other than if I dont I go to jail lol


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Dec 2006)

Tell that tp the Iroquois and the Ottawa who are involved in the War on Terror right now. You might not feel you are contributing but don't paint the rest of us with the same brush. Unlike you I am proud of my naval career and what I have contributed in for the past 16 years.



> No I mean what exactly is it that the Navy does that gives us existance ? Why do we exist ? When we have people dieing in Afghan and our ships goes south for a cocktail party, thats what makes me wonder what this is all about. Personally I wonder if signing all our boats over to the CCG and giving them the mininmal crew while rolling all the other Naval people into Army trade that can be of some use.



With that attitude I think maybe its time for a remuster because clearly you do not have a clue what a navy is for and what it does.


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Dec 2006)

All 3 services have their roles. 

The Navy might not be suffering any casualties, but you can't measure what a service does or is doing but counting the numbers of the fallen.  There is no doubt that the mission in Afghanistan is taking its toll, but to think that no one else is contributing anything and to think that every sailor should be wearing cadpat to contribute is wrong.

Sure the Navy has cocktail parties, but we have contributed quite a bit to the war on terror.  The Air force has contributed as well, we all have a role to play.  

I also agree that a remuster to an army trade sounds like something you should consider.  

We just had some ships head south on the west coast for some exercises, and we also had the SCTF going on out east we do these exercises for a reason, not just to get shitfaced and see the donkey show in TJ.


----------



## rmacqueen (5 Dec 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> not just to get shitfaced and see the donkey show in TJ.


Really? ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2006)

Holy cow relax boys. 1 question and you guys sugest a self imposed exile from the Navy sheesh! :brickwall: I new we got panicky at an iota of a thought of doing in the navy but I was hoping an open forum disscussion could enlighten me and show me what Im missing thats all guys. 

What is it we do is all I am asking ? How are we (as the navy) contributing to the current events ? What do we do that makes us an indisspensible asset to the people of Canada?

Would a remuster to an Amry trade be up my ally who knows.


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Dec 2006)

I'll ditto in with Sub_guy...the Navy does have a role, along with the Army and Airforce....the fact that the Navy hasn't fired shots in anger in a long time doesn't invalidate our presence in areas that need representation from Canada that the Army cannot go. 

Can the Army sit 12 miles offshore Syria?  Sail around Cyprus and monitor things?  Can the Airforce spend weeks on station?  Can the Army drop everything, load up 1000 troops and drive themselves down to a disaster area to help rebuild and deliver relief supplies over 1500 miles from home-base?  

The Army does many things which the Navy cannot, and vice-versa....even in the Army they recognize that no one type of unit is perfectly suited for a mission....this is why "Combined Arms" has been a work in progress since WWI.  

Anyhow, if you don't see a good reason for the Navy to be a part of your life, or you don't feel that you can contribute to our nation by continuing your Naval career, and want to switch over to the Army, then by all means, do what is best for you.  

Oh, and so far, I haven't seen the Donkey show either...TJ hasn't been one of my port visits (yet)

NS


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2006)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'll ditto in with Sub_guy...the Navy does have a role, along with the Army and Airforce....the fact that the Navy hasn't fired shots in anger in a long time doesn't invalidate our presence in areas that need representation from Canada that the Army cannot go.
> 
> Can the Army sit 12 miles offshore Syria?  Sail around Cyprus and monitor things?  Can the Airforce spend weeks on station?  Can the Army drop everything, load up 1000 troops and drive themselves down to a disaster area to help rebuild and deliver relief supplies over 1500 miles from home-base?
> 
> ...



I was at Op Unison. While that was intresting to see and be part of you should know that allot of what we sent down, in humanitarian aid, was returned to us. Also I dont know if we were "on station" long enough to really have made a profound effect on the people of Boloxi. But never the less it was a great way to show our solidarity with the American people, and the ones I personally met were very happy to see us. Maybe I just contricted myself im not sure. lol

Your right combined arms is the whole idea here, I ask you now, what did we transport to the gulf in the way of troops, cargo or weapons that is used in KAF ? 

Syria: Ok thats great we can sit 12 miles off Syria and do what? Support landings? Sure could but there isnt any going on that I have herd of. 

Cyprus: Did we end the UN mission there almost completly a decade ago. Didnt know it was flaring up again.

Its not that the Navy needs to fire shots in anger to validate its presence its finding a role that is actually worth the money being spent to equip and utilize us. Why not go and take on the rising piracy threat around the west coast of Africa or the straits of Malacca. Fisheries are of course a great mission we have but also one I think should be done by a better equiped CCG. I would also like to see us move into the Arctic seeing as that is of rising importance. 

In closing it dosnt really matter what element Im in because my uniform means nothing. I can work with all 3 services as well as Spec Ops and the fact that my DEUs are Navy has no effect on that. This is one of the things I enjoy about supply we get to see the whole picture where as allot of personel dont.  Im not trying to put anyone down here, Im not trying to say that what you have all done in your respective carrers is pointless all I am asking is how we (the Navy) actually fit into the big picture now ? I mean hell even our Leos were flown over to KAF.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Dec 2006)

If you don't get it now you will never get it. Prime examples were given yet you chose to ignore them.

Hell even Rick Hillier knows the usefulness of the Navy and he wears green....we are a martime nation Tar, nothing makes a country take notice then a warship off the coast. Ask the Iraqis. Ask the Iranians.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2006)

Ok apparently questioning the Navy is the wrong move. understood. Like I said before and I provided examples of where a navy could be useful like this: 



> Its not that the Navy needs to fire shots in anger to validate its presence its finding a role that is actually worth the money being spent to equip and utilize us. Why not go and take on the rising piracy threat around the west coast of Africa or the straits of Malacca. Fisheries are of course a great mission we have but also one I think should be done by a better equiped CCG. I would also like to see us move into the Arctic seeing as that is of rising importance.



Everything there is a great reason for a Navy, if you dont think Piracy is noble undertaking I sugest you surf around on the net on modern day piracy. Its very quickly gaining internation attention and concern, as for the Arctic well I think everyone know we will need to do more police that area if we intend to stake our claim on it. 

How did I ignore the examples ? I think I addressed them did I not ? I would just like to see our Navy take a more active role in the modern mid east, be it anti-piracy patrols or anti-terror patrols. By the way it is highly suspected that the rise of piracy off Africa is part and parcel with the Taliban. 

Of course were a maritime nation I think I stated that by the importance I put on the fisheries patrols. I just think its a job more suited to the CCG while we (Navy) should be projecting our power more overseas. 

As for the Iranians and Iraqis shaking in there boots at the sight of an Arleigh Burke, well in this last conflict I dont think too man 16'' shells flew into Bagdad as the marines stormed the Tigres and Eupraties. BUT the sight of a CPF or 280 bearing down on a boat full of pirates that just RPGd a cruise ship or oil platform now that will get your attention.

Anyways I will back out of this thread now I hope I didnt upset anyone too much I just wanted some disscussion to take place.  >


----------



## aesop081 (5 Dec 2006)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> As for the Iranians and Iraqis shaking in there boots at the sight of an Arleigh Burke, well in this last conflict I dont think too man 16'' shells flew into Bagdad



I dont think too many Arleigh Burkes fire 16" shells  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2006)

16" shells for 5" guns.  Proof positive.  He is from Supply. ;D

Retiring now.


----------



## Trinity (6 Dec 2006)

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

scanned the thread.. didn't see this link.

Nice pic of it in action (night - tracers are nice!)


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Dec 2006)

ha ha ha lol yes there are no 16" shells on an Arleigh Burke lol got myself there    

Wow thats a great vid.

Now if there are any NWTs out there do you think there is a way you could make this mobile ? Or would it almost have to be stationary because of the powerpack and other goodies needed to operate it ? When I say mobile I mean could you mount this on an existing armoured chassies


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2006)

Hmmm.... if we are going to sling a ot of lead into the air - wouldn't it be more expedient and provide comparable protection; 
with the purchase of a bunch of ZSU 23-4s?

While the weapon platform does have it's problems, if you want to throw an awful lot of lead at a problem, this baby is for you.


----------



## Mortar guy (7 Dec 2006)

You're being sarcastic, right Geo? I can't tell (not QL4 Sarcasm Qualified although I have done the DL).

Phalanx Block IB - 2000-3000 rounds per minute; search radar; tracking radar; TV/FLIR EO systems; ability to engage rockets, artillery, mortars.

ZSU-23-4 - 4000 rounds per minute (limited to 50 round bursts due to barrel heating); old search/tracking radar; antiquated EO system (day only); no known capability to engage rockets etc.

I dunno. I'll take the Phalanx...   8)

MG


----------



## Roadracer (10 Dec 2006)

Just a few examples of distinctively Canadian naval roles in modern crisis (from personal experience):

Gulf War 1: Ships rapidly deployed in support of our allies. The ship I was on went through the Suez Canal in a convoy containing Canadian, USN, RN and civilian ships. Canadian units commanded, protected and were part of the logistics train (Anyone else remember the "Pachyderm"?)

OP Allied Force: During the NATO bombing campain in the Balkans, Canadian ships marshalled air raids, protected air lanes and provided contact and cover for A/C returning home low on fuel and ammunition. Also provided information to intercept people smugglers who were doing things such as towing rafts of refugees into the middle of the Adriatic and cutting them loose. 

OP Apollo: A host of duties including LIO (Leadership interdiction operations) where vessels were searched for escaping Taliban/Al Quieda leaders, convoy escort and force protection. 

Canada's national defence depends on having a balanced capability on land/sea/air. The naval component is relatively easily deployable to anywhere in the world (North Korea next?) and provides a defensive capability in national waters. You were obviously not in during the Turbot War if you feel the CCG is the ONLY answer to defence of national interests in Canada's littoral. 

You seem upset that folks are jumping to the defence of a service they love because you raise a question. Yet what did you expect? Everyone to just suddenly agree? If, in your opinion, the navy has no significant role in the future of Canada's defensive posture, it's up to you to present logical reasons for that. Then maybe we'll all be at the re-must office with you  ;D 

And we are waaaaaaayyyy off topic. The Phalanx debate does continue. Part of the discussions are apparently the actually utility of such things in theatre and how they would be supported. Originally it was felt that some army trades could get by with a little extra training on the units (!). Cooler heads have prevailed and it is now realized that (for Canada) use of these in AFG will require a significant naval footprint on the ground for a protracted time. 

Also, what does this do to the fighting efficiency of the fleet? How many ships can remain fully deployable (i.e. at high readiness)? Where will the navy require their units next (again the NK thing is one example)?


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Dec 2006)

Roadracer said:
			
		

> You seem upset that folks are jumping to the defence of a service they love because you raise a question. Yet what did you expect? Everyone to just suddenly agree? If, in your opinion, the navy has no significant role in the future of Canada's defensive posture, it's up to you to present logical reasons for that. Then maybe we'll all be at the re-must office with you  ;D



How do you agree with a question ? Thats all it was, a question. I also provided examples in which we could contribute more. I didnt expect anyone to agree with a question, but I hoped for non-biased thought out and rational answers not statments the ammount to if you dont like it leave. 

Dont get me wrong here the Navy has been good to me, that I cant deny. But once you go to Afghanistan and see what I have and then come back to home and watch us go through the paces, have cocktail parties, get bitched at because the officers heads arnt clean enough for there RMC prissy butts you may share in my opinion. I dont know maybe you wont either. The Navy needs sweeping changes to stay relevant not only internationally but in reqruiting sense too. 

Your right we are way off topic. Back to the CIWS. I agree to disagree


----------



## NavyShooter (10 Dec 2006)

Roadracer said:
			
		

> Canada's national defence depends on having a balanced capability on land/sea/air. The naval component is relatively easily deployable to anywhere in the world (North Korea next?) and provides a defensive capability in national waters. You were obviously not in during the Turbot War if you feel the CCG is the ONLY answer to defence of national interests in Canada's littoral.
> 
> And we are waaaaaaayyyy off topic. The Phalanx debate does continue. Part of the discussions are apparently the actually utility of such things in theatre and how they would be supported. Originally it was felt that some army trades could get by with a little extra training on the units (!). Cooler heads have prevailed and it is now realized that (for Canada) use of these in AFG will require a significant naval footprint on the ground for a protracted time.
> 
> Also, what does this do to the fighting efficiency of the fleet? How many ships can remain fully deployable (i.e. at high readiness)? Where will the navy require their units next (again the NK thing is one example)?



Turbot War....almost forgot about that one.  It was an interesting time on the Gotta-go when I was out there.  CCG got the credit, but from what I heard, we were ordered not to go into Newf, so the CCG could get the PR boost.

From the open source stuff on the web, it's obvious to me that the US have continued to have a naval presence with their C-RAM's, as some of the quotes in the stories are from "Petty-officer" so-and-so, or Chief so-and-so.....

I'd heard rumors of Cadpat people sitting in on courses at NAD, but for at least a while, the experienced bodies would have to be sailors I think.  

As for dropping a CIWS onto an armoured chassis, well, I don't think that'd go too far, too much bulk to fit easily.  It takes up (from the pics I've seen) the greater part of an 18 wheeler flat-bed.

Oh, and the rumbles I've heard might involve new purchases, instead of borrowing from active units in the fleet.

NS


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2006)

I have suggested in the not to distant past that there might be some synergies between the CIC/NWT types and the Arty/Engr types in the modern expeditionary base.

The Army has got used to thinking of itself as a manoeuvre force over the years.  The notion of establishing an immobile, permanent garrison that can't move away from a threat but needs to defend itself in place against all comers is a relatively new and developing concept.   Defensive positions have generally been seen as temporary and are manned by the available personnel and equipment pending their move to a new location.

The Navy, by contrast, while being able to manoeuvre in a limited fashion has always had to confront the fact that many of the threats opposing it can manoeuvre faster against it than it can evade them.  Ultimately the navy has to stand and trade shot for shot.  This was true for Nelson's navy.  It is still true.  What has changed though is that, because of the floating garrison nature of a ship, the Navy has been able to adopt more technological solutions to replace manpower.  CIWS is one example.  The CIC is the best example.

The Army is struggling for manpower but much of its manpower is employed in force protection and support.  The Navy has learned how to accomplish some of these tasks with out bodies.  Perhaps there is something that the Navy can teach the Army about the engineering, manning and maintaining of a defensive suite for a fixed garrison.   A Garrison CIC with wired in sensors, Remote Weapons Systems, Wireless Claymores, Metallic Storm type preloaded grenade launchers etc, CIWS perhaps, would provide an interesting defensive spine not just for a BMA but even for FOBs and Villages.  That would free up the Army as a manoeuver force to go wandering the spaces between the garrisons and acting as reaction forces to reinforce threatened garrisons or to act against concentrations fo enemy forces.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Dec 2006)

Intresting thoughts Kirkhill. 

How well could a CIWS designate in a high air traffic area ? What ther chances is becomes confused and shoots down a transport full of troops ? These would be my big worry because KAF is anything but quiet when it comes to air traffic. 

As for set up so 4 set at the corners would be sufficiant you think ? I guess making is acutally mobile would be too cumbersome.


----------



## Roadracer (10 Dec 2006)

Now we're talking! 

Navy Shooter, you remember correctly. I believe it was consider far to politically sensitive for a Navy ship to be seen escorting the offending fishing boat into Newfie John. Remember that there was a Spanish frigate sent to the scene. Any more 'provocation' from Canada was considered a bad idea. 

Specifically on topic, the CIWS wouldn't be particularly mobile. The cooling problems for the unit are guite large. I've seen ships rig fire hoses to get the water up there to circulate. I will assume that part of the rig on the truck is a large water tank? Or a pump? 

Part of the upgrade required for 'CIWS on a truck' is software. And we haven't shot down any helos with the things yet, so SOPs are working well to ensure only 'bandits' get designated. And that leads to Kirkhill's thoughts of an "OPS Room" controling the base's self defence capability. Think of it as a ship that doesn't move and all kinds of ideas leap to mind!


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Dec 2006)

intresting... Could it really lock onto a small rocket or projectile like an RPG or Katushka rocket? What about a mortor bomb ?

That would be very very impressive...


----------



## Petard (10 Dec 2006)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> intresting... Could it really lock onto a small rocket or projectile like an RPG or Katushka rocket? What about a mortar bomb ?
> 
> That would be very very impressive...



CIWS against an RPG, probably not, but this might...
http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/researchtech/afvt/das_e.asp

BTW the CIWS, as the US is developing it, is only one part of a much larger system that makes C-RAM, one that also includes the manoeuvre force assets.

for Tar, how about throwing the spell check on your messages hunh? You're starting to read like you got into the x-mas grog already


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Dec 2006)

Pssst it was an OPV (fitted with Harpoons) that the Spanish sent over. They too had no interest in escalating things unless we ratched the tension level higher.


----------



## Roadracer (10 Dec 2006)

Possible advertized CIWS targets: 

" ...  standard and guided artillery; .... " and 
"these adapted weapons could also provide defensive options against the kinds of rocket attacks encountered in Round 1 of Israel's recent war with Hezbollah, Iran & Syria...."  

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/09/phalanx-ciws-the-last-defense-on-ship-and-ashore/index.php


(Ex-Dragoon, I apologize, I couldn't remember exactly what the Spainish sent over. I do remember a couple of years afterward when COMSTANAVFORLANT staff was embarked on the ship I was on. One NATO staff officer was from Spain, he was VERY nervous about coming over!     )


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Dec 2006)

I remember some of us were nervous about going into Valencia just a couple of years after the Turbot War....for the most part we were kindly recieved.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Dec 2006)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Turbot War....almost forgot about that one.  It was an interesting time on the Gotta-go when I was out there.  CCG got the credit, but from what I heard, we were ordered not to go into Newf, so the CCG could get the PR boost.



CCG, or DFO?  I thought the fisheries protection fleet was still separate at that time.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Dec 2006)

This is the ship Spain sent to the Turbot wars........

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/BuquesUnidades/ListaOficialBuques/13Patrulleros/13_02_serviola.asp?foto=foto4G.jpg&pie=Foto++Serviola

The Serviola


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Dec 2006)

I recall working with my boss to try and figure out if we could launch ASROC back at them if things got stressful...the question of fitted for, or fitted with Harpoon was on a lot of minds.

As for the C-RAM able to engage Mortar rounds.....




> On 16 December 2004, TARDEC’s Active Defense Systems team conducted test simulation activities. The first activity involved a live interceptor being loaded while waiting for a live mortar to fall within engagement range. This was followed by Mortar Tracking System(MTS) RADAR providing IAAPS a cue. The system then tracked the mortar, computed a fire control solution, fired, updated the fuse timing in flight, and the interceptor appeared to engage the mortar "nose to nose" at the prescribed standoff in front of the mortar.
> 
> High-speed video showed that the mortar was knocked askew, went into a flat fall, and appeared to damage at least one fin. It then continued to fall sideways, but eventually seemed to right itself, and struck the earth at a slight angle, exploding upon hitting the ground. Upon recovery and inspection of the mortar, only the tail section was found. Multiple fragment hits were evident on the fins, one fin was clearly severed by an interceptor fragment, and another showed clear fragment impact.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm  (Open source link)

Obviously, incoming mortar rounds can be engaged and damaged.

NS


----------



## eerickso (25 Dec 2006)

Instead of hitting the motar/artillery rounds, how about sending some fire to the point of origin. The 57 or 76 mm could easily do this ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Dec 2006)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Instead of hitting the motar/artillery rounds, how about sending some fire to the point of origin. The 57 or 76 mm could easily do this ???



And let the incoming shells kill personnel and damage materiel? What if you don't know where the shells are coming from? What of the chances of unacceptable civillian casualties and collateral damage? have you considered any of this? Do you know anything about the 57mm and the 76mm to state they can be used in counter battery fire?


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Dec 2006)

If we can calculate the trajectory to give us a high probabilty of destroying an incoming round, then we also can determine the point from where the projectile was fired. We used to do it in the 1960's with the AN/MPQ 501 counter-mortar radar and its technology was stone age compared to today's. It has a double beam and we used to mark the points on the scope where the bomb appeared on the scope with grease pencil, line up the points with a cursor and engage an analog computer. Retaliation is technically possible, but as noted there are larger issues.


----------



## Trinity (26 Dec 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Retaliation is technically possible, but as noted there are larger issues.



Easy enough to launch a mortar round on or beside a school and leave immediately.  I wouldn't want to
be the one to retaliate with the poor civilians taking the brunt of it.

We have enough examples of that with the IDF and Hamas.


----------



## Donut (26 Dec 2006)

Lets not forget the IRA, and their roofless vans.  Drive into location, fire, and drive away.  Or, timer the things, and just abandon them.  

DF


----------



## eerickso (26 Dec 2006)

56 and 76 need an FCS, I would sugguest:
http://www.one35th.com/attc/arthur_main.htm



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Retaliation is technically possible, but as noted there are larger issues.



Solution to the larger issues: the system should have one red button that requires a human being to press.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Dec 2006)

eerickso said:
			
		

> 56 and 76 need an FCS, I would sugguest:
> http://www.one35th.com/attc/arthur_main.htm
> Solution to the larger issues: the system should have one red button that requires a human being to press.



Still waiting for your response....but I will bring up some other points. What use would the 57mm and the 76mm be in a ground role? Why even bother? To engage the bad guys the ground pounders have their own mortars, 25mm on the LAV3 and Coyotes, 105mm on the Leopards and not to mention the M777 155mm.


----------



## rmacqueen (26 Dec 2006)

The problem, IMHO, is that all these solutions are for traditional counter-battery fire.  The problem with what the Taliban are doing is they are firing and taking off so by the time you have a solution for counter fire they are gone.  And, as pointed out earlier, they also like to use innocent civilians as shields.  On a political level, one mistake could cause irreparable harm to the CF.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Dec 2006)

The Army has another potential solution on hand.  They don't need to put the CIWS into the field as a C-RAM system and deny their use to the Navy.  Nor do they need Navy personnel to show them how to operate unfamiliar gear.

The Army operated/operates the ADATS system in conjunction with the Skyguard Radar and the Twin 35mm GDF-005.  Rheinmetall-Oerlikon-Contraves is marketing their current generation of the system, the Skyshield, as a C-RAM system capable of countering Mortar Bombs and Rockets.  The Skyguard could and the GDF-005s could both be upgraded (and the GDFs equipped with AHEAD ammunition) to function as a Skyshield system.

Even the ADATS missiles could be incorporated in static missile launchers that could be integrated into the system.

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1547&lang=3&pdb=1


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Dec 2006)

A technical assessment during the Gulf War indicated ADATS could be used to shoot down incoming projectiles, but I am not aware of the state of development, if any, of this capability. We have, however, come a long way since then.

As for retaliating against a mortar baseplate or rocket launching position, the limiting factor is the time required to get rounds on the target. If our locating device is pointed in the right direction, the location of the firing point will be known almost as soon as the weapon is fired. The delay includes the human decision making cycle, the time to lay and fire the gun and one that all the wizardry in the world can't alter, the time of flight of the rounds.

One thing none of us have discussed is the limitations of the enemy weapons and particularly range. For example, say we have a base that covers an area one km by one km and the enemy is using a mortar with a range of five km. If he wishes to land a round in the centre of the target, then he must set up within 4500 metres of the perimeter. Now he is not likely to deploy within eyeshot of our position, so he is limited to a band around our base of say 3500 metres deep. Not all the ground will be suitable, and we may be able to identify the best locations for him to use and cover these with sensors and/or patrols. Now our approach is apt to be different depending if we are in a built-up area with lots of civilians living in that belt as opposed to being out in the boondocks.

I guess what I am trying to say is that dealing with the threat is complex, but not hopeless.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Army has another potential solution on hand.  They don't need to put the CIWS into the field as a C-RAM system and deny their use to the Navy.  Nor do they need Navy personnel to show them how to operate unfamiliar gear.
> 
> The Army operated/operates the ADATS system in conjunction with the Skyguard Radar and the Twin 35mm GDF-005.  Rheinmetall-Oerlikon-Contraves is marketing their current generation of the system, the Skyshield, as a C-RAM system capable of countering Mortar Bombs and Rockets.  The Skyguard could and the GDF-005s could both be upgraded (and the GDFs equipped with AHEAD ammunition) to function as a Skyshield system.
> 
> ...



Agreed they do not _need_ to put sailors in the field to operate these systems however, right now the navy are the ones that concentrate a lot of time and resources on engaging missiles and shells. Are you sure you want to dismiss that expertise so lightly?


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Dec 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Agreed they do not _need_ to put sailors in the field to operate these systems however, right now the navy are the ones that concentrate a lot of time and resources on engaging missiles and shells. Are you sure you want to dismiss that expertise so lightly?



Absolutely NOT.  My comments were not intended as derogatory at all.  I am sure the naval personnel and their skills would be more than welcome, with their existing tool box.  Although I did understand you to say that the current systems were needed for existing naval operations and that the vessels are short-handed.  

All I was saying was that if you are not available there are other options open.  On the other hand if you are available, as I said, I can't help but think you and your skills would be welcome.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## eerickso (26 Dec 2006)

As a formal naval officer, I do not envy the task of the Army in Afghanistan.
While there is always safety considerations when releasing naval weapons, I believe the problem is generally simpler in the Navy.

I can not guarantee that such a weapon system would not kill any civilians. I cannot discuss the engineering challenges of such a system because I do not know them, however, I could give you the attributes of a naval gun using the sea giraffe(air search radar) and stir(high power tracker). 

Disadvantages:

It would be very large. (Large naval gun system, radars and power generation)
It would have no armor protection. (The navy doesn't do this anymore)
It would have limited deployability in the army. (Transporting a large naval gun system by air and land )
It would not be mobile.

Advantages:
It would quickly detect/track incoming projectiles and calculate solution.
It would quickly send rounds down range and at a very high rate of fire.
It would be a very automated system. (Need a few Radar Techs and some Naval Weapon Techs to maintain the system)
It could quickly assess if it is going to fire into a mosque or school instead of a farmer’s field.

After reading the article about CWIS, it sounds like they are using the system to protect civilians in the blue zone. In Afghanistan, do they have this problem also? If not, locating bases to positons were counter battery missions can be conducted without any concern for non-combatants is an easy solution.


----------



## NCRCrow (26 Dec 2006)

This is not going to happen. End the thread


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Dec 2006)

For whatever it is worth, the army has been far less technical in its approach to operational challenges than was the navy. A jillion years ago, when I  was a junior captain in the artillery school in Shilo I was asked if I thought that computer technology could improve the artillery's counter bombardment capability. From what was described to me, and given the state of the art, I deduced - incorectly - that this was a data managment challenge. It was not until many years later that I realized from unclassified sources that the navy was light years ahead of us in applying technology for identifying, tracking and destroying a target from all the background clutter that existed in a maritime environment.


----------



## NCRCrow (26 Dec 2006)

The dust would kill it ! But it would be an awesome deterrent at a road block or checkpoint

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf

How many people commenting on this thread have fired the CIWS (Phalanx)?

Old Sweat:
The Canadian Navy is the best in the world for its use of sensors (including HELO/MPA) to detect/classify and determine a threat and engage it with a kick ass Standard/Sparrow/ or Harpoon. We are the best gunners and EW's and the masters of link.

WE ARE THE BEST!!!!


----------



## rmacqueen (26 Dec 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> The dust would kill it !
> 
> How many people commenting on this thread have fired the CIWS (Phalanx)?


Have you?  You are out of your lane on this one.  The discussion is whether Canada will send them not whether it is feasible.  The fact that a land version already exists was pointed out earlier.



			
				xmarcx said:
			
		

> Yes...except they've already done it, and someone already posted the shiny brochure to prove it!
> 
> http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf



Or if pretty pictures are more your style, try this.



			
				COBRA-6 said:
			
		

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


----------



## FireMission (26 Dec 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 potentially 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.


----------



## NCRCrow (26 Dec 2006)

"You are out of your lane on this one" LOL ! Is this lane thing a new buzz word or saying! 

Have you fired it , I have hundreds of times.

Have you been to Afghanistan, I have.

Should Canada send a Phalanx's to the ghan. Not a naval version.

This is a open forum , so this "lane" thing does not really apply here does it?


----------



## rmacqueen (27 Dec 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Have you fired it , I have hundreds of times.
> 
> Have you been to Afghanistan, I have.



Congrats.  Doesn't change the fact that they have already developed a ground based version so obviously, the dust *won't* kill it.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Dec 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Congrats.  Doesn't change the fact that they have already developed a ground based version so obviously, the dust *won't* kill it.



In all fairness, HFXCrow is probably right.  The fact that a ground-based variant exists doesn't speak to its reliability - at least not yet, anyways.

In my years aboard CPFs, if I had a nickel for every time I emptied a "watertight" SHINCOM enclosure of salt water, only to find a salt-encrusted circuit board that had caused it to fail, I'd be a very rich man.

I'm not a gunbuster, but given the amount of preventive maintenance required to keep _salt_ out of the CIWS, I can't imagine sand and dust being all that friendly to something that fires 300 rounds in the blink of an eye.  The land-based variant would be very maintenance intensive, and suffer a high failure rate once it had been in the environment for a while.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2006)

FireMission said:
			
		

> 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 potentially 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.



Firemission - I noticed that Oerlikon is flogging an upgrade package to take the GDF-005s up to 008 AHEAD and the Skyguard up to Skyshield and C-RAM capacity.  The fixed launchers for the ADATS - might that make a better solution as a deployable system than the MMEV concept?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Dec 2006)

How many people would be in that AD Troop and how would it be sustained?  Just how effective would the 35mms be against mortar shells?  Would it really be 80%?


----------



## Mortar guy (27 Dec 2006)

Red_Five speaks wise words.

This seems like an expensive technological solution to a problem that may be defeated by other means. I'm not saying we shouldn't protect our bases/FOBs from mortar attack but rather I'm saying there might be a better way.

Besides, how much damage have rockets/mortars relly done? We can't eliminate all threats and we should think long and hard before spending (potentially) hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce (not eliminate) one of the least effective Taliban tactics. 

Let Timmie think it's worthwhile! If we reduce this threat they may just resort to more effective attacks (like dogs with bees in their mouths that shoot bees at you when they bark).  ;D

MG


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Dec 2006)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Let Timmie think it's worthwhile! If we reduce this threat they may just resort to more effective attacks (like dogs with bees in their mouths that shoot bees at you when they bark).  ;D
> 
> MG


:rofl:


----------



## NCRCrow (27 Dec 2006)

The best answer is having a counter battery fire radar for Force Protection. This could be accomplished with a TPQ-36 or 37. 

Camp Julien tried the ARTHUR radar but it was not meant for the Afghanistan environment.


Trinity has blessed me !


----------



## Mortar guy (27 Dec 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> The best answer is having a counter battery fire radar for Force Protection. This could be accomplished with a TPQ-36 or 37.
> 
> Camp Julien tried the ARTHUR radar but it was not meant for the Afghanistan environment.



Why is that the "best answer"? All counter battery radar tells you is that you're being shot at and even then the TPQ-36 isn't perfect. CBR tied to artillery that can shoot back is an option, but, as many people have mentioned, far from the best solution. Just to summarize, here are the problems:

1) Opponents will place their mortars/rockets in built-up areas making counterfire unacceptable from a ROE point of view.
2) Opponents will fire rockets on timers so you'll be shooting back at nothing.
3) You need to man both the radars and guns 24/7 and both have to be pointing the right direction. Neither radar nor guns have 360 degree arcs although this can be mitigated. Also, are you going to keep a troops' worth of guns in KAF, manned day and night, to counter an ineffective Timmie tactic?

Also, ARTHUR wasn't a complete waste of space. Whoever drafted our lease contract was, as the big limiter with that system was the number of hours per day we could have it "on". The problem with false returns had more to do with experience IIRC.

Cheers,

MG


----------



## NCRCrow (27 Dec 2006)

it was inexperienced operators....

Yes, you are being shot at, "STAND TO"

Whats the CIWS going to do at 2000 yds MER.


----------



## Mortar guy (27 Dec 2006)

I assume your last sentence was a question?

The CIWS would (theoretically) shoot down the incoming round. Hence the C-RAM everyone is talking about. The idea wasn't to use the Phalanx for counter-battery work!!

Cheers,

MG


----------



## NCRCrow (27 Dec 2006)

So you are going to man the CIWS search radar 24/7 !!

It will have to be manned 24/7 and a decision made by the operator in seconds if it is a threat or friendly organic asset. (UAV/Helo)

No fly zones are oblivious concept to the US.

Plus the heat...........

Hence my TPQ-36 or Land Giraffe as a I & W FP measure.


----------



## Mortar guy (27 Dec 2006)

I thought you'd fired this thing "hundreds of times"!? If that's the case you must know that the radar/computer can easily distinguish between a UAV and a rocket! Also, you know that the CIWS can be programmed with "no fire" sectors or zones (i.e. airfield approaches). Finally, everything I have seen shows the land-Phalanx manned by one guy whereas a gun troop plus radar would require over 30 personnel on standby at any one time. I don't really understand your fixation on a radar-only solution as that is passive and, by your own admission, not very effective.

This is all moot anyway. I still don't believe that some doo-hickey will solve the rocket problem.

MG


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2006)

Larger issues....
Troops in Ops last week indicated that if one single civilian Afghan fell to Friendly fire / accidental fire, then the operation would be lost.

Thus, strap on your helmet & protective vest, find shelter & "relax"


----------



## NCRCrow (27 Dec 2006)

Disagree, about your CIWS search crit.

But its a moot point......

the game is on 3-2 Canada


----------



## COBRA-6 (27 Dec 2006)

C-RAM is not just phalanx, it is a network of 7 systems, one of which is an intercept capability (phalanx). OPSEC precludes a more detailed explanation, but trying to compare this application to the way the Navy employs is apples and oranges...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2006)

Thanks to Cobra-6.  I was starting to wonder why the deployment of a single fire position Phalanx was being compared to the deployment of a Troop of 35s.

As I understand the Skyguard/Skyshield system a single fire position consists of two Twin-35s, with or without an additional fixed missile launcher or two.  Conceivably, the operators on the fire position could have up to 16 ADATS missiles or some such at their disposal.  As well they have a search radar, a tracking radar and electro-optical sensors.  The "On-Duty" staff at the fire position consists of 2-only personnel.

A Troop would cover a perimeter.  CIWS would still seem to require a number of units to cover a perimeter.  Whether all the systems on the perimeter could be netted together so that one "One-Duty Team" could manage the entire perimeter wouldn't seem impossible.

Some links on Rheinmetall-Oerlikon's Camp Defence concept.
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=3670&lang=3&pdb=1

As well as on Skyshield and Skyguard
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1548&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1552&lang=3&pdb=1


----------



## Mortar guy (28 Dec 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> C-RAM is not just phalanx, it is a network of 7 systems, one of which is an intercept capability (phalanx). OPSEC precludes a more detailed explanation, but trying to compare this application to the way the Navy employs is apples and oranges...



Big hairy roger on that. I have seen the presentation about all the C-RAM "bits" but for OPSEC reasons have limited myself to discussing that which is more or less in the open. To tell you the truth it's not the CIWS alone that bothers me about the C-RAM proposal put forth in that presentation. It's the use of a varied and large amount of resources to counter a very ineffective Timmie tactic.

MG


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Dec 2006)

I met an Arty guy over the holidays who said that they are sending down some Air Defence Arty boys to take the course in Halifax and deploy with this system in the not so distant future.


----------



## NavyShooter (28 Dec 2006)

I don't believe that the "plan" for this system would be to strip the frigates bare....the rumbles I've heard have been to the effect that there will be new purchases rather than borrowing from the Navy, and the numbers I heard include spares for maintenance periods.

NS


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Dec 2006)

Any air defence guys out there reading our thread wanna touch on this ? I think you may be the most "in the know" on this subject.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (29 Dec 2006)

I heard from an NDHQ guy that the money for a new system (a land based Phalanx system) has already been identified.


----------



## eerickso (30 Dec 2006)

I would hope that the Army doesn't invest its money in such a small niche. This is a very passive tactic. You fight a 100 dollar tactic with millions of dollars? What other roles does this system perform, the Army already does air defence? Isn't there any better ideas?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2006)

Too bad they cancelled MMEV, could have added small calibre/high-rate CB fires in between the ADATS and TOW-3 tubes and the add-on Stinger...  ;D

Seriously, though...I agree with many who have noted that there is a large cost (not only monetarily but training and op maint-wise) to putting such a cap in theatre.

p.s.  MG, didn't you like my support for that weapon system you loved so much!  >

G2G


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Dec 2006)

eerickso said:
			
		

> I would hope that the Army doesn't invest its money in such a small niche. This is a very passive tactic. You fight a 100 dollar tactic with millions of dollars? What other roles does this system perform, the Army already does air defence? Isn't there any better ideas?



Why is gaining another capability such a bad thing? Yeah you spend a little extra compared to what the bad guys are spending but in the long run are you not saving money by possibly preventing deaths and loss of equipment? You might not care if it saves the life of one soldier but I do.


----------



## rmacqueen (30 Dec 2006)

eerickso said:
			
		

> I would hope that the Army doesn't invest its money in such a small niche. This is a very passive tactic. You fight a 100 dollar tactic with millions of dollars? What other roles does this system perform, the Army already does air defence? Isn't there any better ideas?


It's not like they would get rid of it once the threat went away.  This would be another tool for future situations as well and, given the ability to program it, useful under many scenario's.  This is the same argument that was used by the Liberals to get rid of the Leopards because there was no longer a threat from the Soviets.  We are now see how shortsighted that was.


----------



## geo (30 Dec 2006)

Considering the effectiveness of TB fire into our camp at KAF
no one has, as yet really justified the need for such a beast....


----------



## MJP (30 Dec 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why is gaining another capability such a bad thing? Yeah you spend a little extra compared to what the bad guys are spending but in the long run are you not saving money by possibly preventing deaths and loss of equipment? You might not care if it saves the life of one soldier but I do.



Meh if it can be proven to be very very effective yea then I would add it.  But I rather that the enemy continue to try and waste their efforts on maintaining a course of action that costs them resources and does little to us.  Agrressive patrolling around the airfields cuts down on the number of rocket and mortar attacks and that IMHO is a better option than adding more people in a role that may or may not be proven effective.


----------



## Mortar guy (30 Dec 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> p.s.  MG, didn't you like my support for that weapon system you loved so much!  >
> 
> G2G



Grrrrr   :rage:  :rage:



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> Meh if it can be proven to be very very effective yea then I would add it.  But I rather that the enemy continue to try and waste their efforts on maintaining a course of action that costs them resources and does little to us.  Agrressive patrolling around the airfields cuts down on the number of rocket and mortar attacks and that IMHO is a better option than adding more people in a role that may or may not be proven effective.



[cheesy Dutch accent] Couldn't have said it better myself [/cheesy Dutch accent]

MG


----------



## Stoker (16 Jan 2007)

New development for the Phalanx.


Phalanx Fitted With Laser and Passes Test 

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. 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20070111.aspx


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (19 Jan 2007)

Just a passing thought here, since this is a "Sgt Rock" type weapons system, mount it on a beefed up LAV and take it out for a bit of Taliban target practice. At 75 rounds of 20 mm a second, not much is going to survive after being hit a by a solid wall of that. Put it on auto, sit back and let it do the rest. A bit expensive on ammo though and a bit of overkill, but i'm sure it would scare the hell out of the taliban. ;D

Like i said, just a thought.


----------



## NCRCrow (19 Jan 2007)

Ref: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/

A personal fav: the Pantsyr with 30mm and SA-19 Missile. Proven in the desert as UAE has them albeit a few radar problems.

We could lease them and get an extended warranty.


----------



## Mortar guy (19 Jan 2007)

Yeah, "proven". Riiiiiight.

You do know they didn't "prove" its ability to shoot down rockets and mortars, right?

 :

MG


----------



## NCRCrow (19 Jan 2007)

It was more of a sarcastic post based on Russia Technology and claims.

The website boasts the K Band radar with a range of 28 km....right


----------



## Mortar guy (19 Jan 2007)

Oh.  :-[

MG


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (27 Jan 2007)

Why is it such and impossability, after all they put a flying cannon in the air, its called the A-10, same difference. Instead of destroying mortar bombs or missles, use the phalanx system to take out the mud huts or fortifications the taliban hole up in and after you have them on the run, blast them straight to hell. I'm sure that taliban recruiting will fall straight into the abyss. 

 During the late 70's during the cold war the soviets deployed the the ZSU-23/4  mounted on a PT-76 or ASU-85 chassis, with (4) 23mm canons which could be used in multiple roles against aircraft, tanks or infantry. As an anti-armoured trooper in Germany during the 80's I had to memorize these as AF recognition. The ZSU was a most feared weapon do the the fact it could be utilized against both air and ground elements and would be very effective against infantry fortifications, APC,s and tanks with armour piercing ammunition under sustained fire.

 Think outside the box... Conventional warfare has taken a back seat in Afhgansistan.


----------



## Mortar guy (28 Jan 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Instead of destroying mortar bombs or missles, use the phalanx system to take out the mud huts or fortifications the taliban hole up in and after you have them on the run, blast them straight to hell. I'm sure that taliban recruiting will fall straight into the abyss...
> 
> 
> ...Think outside the box... Conventional warfare has taken a back seat in Afhgansistan.



This is easily the brightest idea I have ever seen. Someone promote this man!

 :

MG


----------



## geo (28 Jan 2007)

ZSU is nothing new,  
the german had their flakpanzer IV (wirbelwind)
the americans had quad .50cals on halfttracks during ww2
we had quad 20mm on a sherman chassis (aka Skink) designed forAA, the one vehicle that was fielded was used for AP in 1944


----------



## mcdvnav (8 Aug 2007)

The Idea of putting a CIWIS on a truck reminds me of the M-163 PIVADS weapons sytem the americans retired a while back. It worked well, but it used an optical sight. It was a vulcan cannon mounted on a M-113 or a trailer.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m163.htm


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2007)

I saw the M113-mounted Vulcan fired in 1968 in Fort Bliss. The weapons system used a Vulcan slowed down from the normal rate to 1000/3000 rounds per minute and a range only radar sight. It was pretty rough and ready.

I am speculating here, but I think it was a second best after the cancelation of the Mauler AD system circa-1964 or -1965. This was essentially a rocket pod on a mount fitted to a M113 - sort of like a RWS - with a radar and all the rest that traversed and elevated. It had progressed far enought that we had decided to deploy a trials unit to join the US trails when the project was cancelled. 

Both systems were pre-digitization and even the transistor was not in wide spread use at the time, so the technology was pretty rudimentary. 

There is no comparison with CIWS except visually.


----------



## mcdvnav (8 Aug 2007)

I agree the VADS and PIVADs don't hold a candle to he Phalanx or any other CIWIS, but it is interesting to see the 20mm vulcan continue on in a new weapons system. 

On another note related to the thread, I've read that the PIVADs was also used in an infantry support role.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2007)

Both versions of Vulcan were used in an infantry support role often in the defence of fire bases. However, both, I think, were also used for convoy protection, as was a Second World War system, the M42 Duster, which was a twin 40mm on a light tank chassis. It had been relegated to the National Guard, but taken back for service in Vietnam until Vulcan was ready. (I think both probably continued in service at the same time working on the 'if it shoots, it works' principle.')


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Aug 2007)

I believe that if we follow the lineage of the Vulcan back, we'll find that the basic Gatling gun system that's used today is essentially identical to that of Mr. Gatling from the 1800's.  

In fact, when trials were done in 1914, Mr. Gatling hooked up one of his guns to an electric motor, and got a rate of fire of 3000 rpm.  

(Ref letter from the War Department, dated 18 Apr 1914, page 62 of "The Machine Gun" Volume 1.)

NavyShooter


----------



## GK .Dundas (10 Aug 2007)

A company in the States called I believe Escaro or something along those lines developed a self propelled mount for GE's 25 MM  equaliser . It looked like and extended Bobcat chassis.It also steered like one by locking up the brakes on one side to turn.I'll see If I can find a picture.


----------



## Spencer100 (29 Sep 2007)

From DefenseNews.com



U.S. May Buy More C-RAMs 

By KRIS OSBORN 


 The U.S. Army wants to buy more Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) systems, first fielded in 2006 to protect forward operating bases from incoming fire, said U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, who directs the Army Capabilities Integration Center.
The Army last increased its order in January, when it gave Northrop Grumman a $71 million contract to supply an unspecified number of C-RAMs. Vane declined to say how many of the weapons have been purchased, or how many might be added.
Once an incoming round is detected, audio and visual alarms warn soldiers. A fire-control subsystem predicts the round’s flight path, prioritizes targets and fires a multibarrel machine gun.
“This gives us a capability to shoot down a mortar or a missile in flight,” Vane said. “This has been a very successful joint system using a Navy gun and Army sensors, along with command and control systems on an air base.”


----------

