Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1)

Bloomberg | March 23, 2007 | Tony Capaccio

[quadrant]

I thought CWIS was supposed to shoot down incoming missiles?

[Cicero]

Here's an article on CWIS:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-15.htm

I suppose it depends on how much response time is needed. I'm not an expert on any of this, and I assume the details are classified anyway. But it does sound as if the admirals are worried about this.

[InsNerd]

good article, mach speed is determinate on sea level and altitude, if the straights are 21 miles from shore, simple speed and time division scenarios make this a tough missle to beat. the chicom tendency to reverse engineer or create knock-offs makes this an exigent threat.

[GSlob]

Well, the reply would have to be along the lines of the phalanx system - gatling-type shotgun with tungsten or depleted uranium projectiles. The thing to work on is the time to the maximum speed of the automatic fire burst - it ought to be decreased to a fraction of a second, together with the deneral agility of the system. Sounds like doable work.

[magslinger]

SONOBUOY PING!

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a low volume pinglist.

[Jacquerie]

For T94, how would the Iranians target a carrier? Launching a sophisticated missile is one thing, but assuming the task group is way over the horizon, how do they know where the carrier is?

For the Ruskies I suppose satellites would be used, so did I answer my own question?

Should we assume that an attack by Iranians required Russian targeting assistance?

[Cicero]

Also, I presume, further work on keeping anything from getting too close to the carrier. That's what a carrier group is for. But it could be difficult in places like the Gulf.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Couldn't they just nuke the sea lanes heading into Taiwan, and dare us to sail through nuclear contamination that would kill our sailers? That way they wouldn't provoke a response from us, but we couldn't respond.

[ThunderStruck94]

Interesting question and I can answer from experience. The Iranians are always trailing our carrier off their coast with small ships. There are also a great deal of dows in the gulf that have radio equipment. It would be hard for them to get a sizzler hit on a carrier in the gulf from one of their kilos (assuming they acquired the technology), but in the GOO they would have a kilo sit and wait for the carrier to move over the top, pop up and launch a missile. For their C801/802 capabilities, they would just launch a bunch of missiles in the general direction of the carrier and pray to Allah that they would hit it. It would be much easier for them to strike first given that a carrier is relatively easy to locate if it is not expecting attack (carriers radiate specific frequencies in radar bands that every enemy knows). When I sat protecting the JFK from my seat in CDC, the Iranians would give us a friendly fly by or sail by almost every day to let us know that they are watching. C801/802 attacks are pretty easy to defeat with existing carrier missile technology (sea sparrow and ram), but the ssn 22, 25 and 27 are all ball-kickers.

[RaceBannon]

The carrier batle group has friends under water, too, but your point is accurate.

[GSlob]

Didn't one of these effing kilos recently got smack in the middle of Kitty Hawk group? so much for "keeping anything from getting too close". And I do not recall that it was in particularly congested waters.
phalanxes are to be improved. their number per large ship ought to be increased to something like a dozen or two. a VERY large ammunition supply is to be provided for them, as it is likely that an equal or greater weight of ammo will have to be expended in shooting down one missile threat from a 2 ton missile. Configure them in such a way that they could shoot down, and close to the ship, to be able to pulverize a Cole-like attack.

[Cicero]

Yes, very true. And frankly, the admiral sounded like an idiot. Unfortunately, screwups are not unknown in war or in hostile situations.

[SauronOfMordor]

This reminds me of the first hand story I heard from a friend working in Egypt in the 70s. Two hundred new school buses were "donated" by the US. Within one year 50% were inoperative, and within 3 all of them were parked.

Twenty years ago I was working for a US defense contractor that was doing work for the Saudi air defense system. We had lots of Saudi officers and NCOs over for training. The NCOs were OK, the officers were "perfumed princes" who left me distinctly unimpressed.

A big part of what makes a military successful, is training and knowledge transfer. Officers need to continually teach and groom those below them. Arab officers don't seem to have enthusiasm for that. They hoard knowledge -- it makes them feel important to be the only one who knows a piece of information

[GSlob]

for that screwup, the heads should roll - they got one destroyer captain, IIRC, but giving a much more general enema is called for.

[neutronsgalore]

"I suppose it depends on how much response time is needed. I'm not an expert on any of this, and I assume the details are classified anyway. But it does sound as if the admirals are worried about this."

Even with the saboted DU ammo used in the Phalanx, I believe the Dutch Goalkeeper (which uses the same Avenger 30mm Gatling as the A-10) has a greater effective range. With the missiles both evasive and supersonic that'll greatly decrease the number destroyed by CIWS after penetration of the Standard and Sea Sparrow defense envelope.

[SauronOfMordor]

CIWS is not magic. It tries to shoot down an incoming missile by firing a burst of rounds at it, seeing if it's still coming, and if so firing another burst. Depending on the model, and how many rounds/burst (generally 60-100), it's got enough rounds in the magazine for between 9 and 25 bursts before a group of sailors have to wrestle another ammo drum into the beast (which takes time)

A big enough swarm of enemy missiles (I have no idea what "big enough" is) will get through

[doorgunner69]

I believe the Dutch Goalkeeper (which uses the same Avenger 30mm Gatling as the A-10) has a greater effective range.

It also has a far better radar, dual band. The CIWS is notorious for getting confused by the radar reflection off the sea surface.

Even a CIWS kill at close range (the only range it has) will leave a huge load of buckshot-like missile debris coming at you at rifle bullet velocity. Unlike WWII battelships and cruisers, modern ships are not armored to stop that.

[Cicero]

I think the answer to that is that it would be harder to sneak a launching platform for a big bunch of missiles into close range than something smaller. But people are always thinking up new ideas on both sides.

[Cicero]

I don't know the players, but that was certainly my reaction.

[Keyga8tor]

TAO on TR's Maiden deployment (89) and former Gator on Stennis. Granted our capabilities have been neglected and need to be upgraded. I am skeptical though about a Mach 3 warhead being maneuverable.