How effective is Phalanx really?

>mfw I actually have a high enough net worth that taking a 1% chance of dying for 8,000 dollars is unprofitable on average

>>31008972
I'm active duty on a destroyer. I don't have enough faith in these things to counter Iranian rockets, so nah

>>31008985
Wow, you could own an average house in australia (USD).

>>31008972
Put like ten more zeroes onto that figure and I might consider it.

>>31009133
Try 1 million.
Median house price in Sydney.
800,000 aud for Melbourne

>>31008972
>How effective is Phalanx really?
Stand in front of it and find out faggot

>>31008972
Can the LCS-odd 57mm even target missiles yet, or is it still manual (joystick and TV screen) only?

>>31008972
It might destroy the missile if your lucky. Then you just have to hope the 200mph+ shrapnel and fireball misses.

Wait is the Phalanx really that bad

>>31010803
If you're in a situation where you have to rely on it then you are fucked

>>31010903
Is that like being in a situation where you need to shoot off handed with your ccw, or like being super drunk and needing to keep the cruise control in check to make it home alright?

>>31008972

It's pretty worthless, which is why the Navy is replacing them with RIM-116 as fast as the things could be made.

Against a missile coming in at mach 3, Phalanx might have 3-5 seconds of engagement time before the missile hits. RAM might start engaging 4-5 times farther.

>>31010803
It's not so much the phalanx being 'bad'

Any CISW would struggle.

>>31008972
I'd take a Kashtan, simply because more metal in the air, plus the missile system.

But CIWS are an absolute last resort, multiple attempts to hit, even against OTT CIWS like the Kashtan will have a high chance of penetration.

>>31009133
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Not even in Tasmania.

>>31011022
Like, riding the base bicycle bareback, several times a week - and hoping you don't catch anything.

i think the phalanx is not very good due to low-caliber limiting range of the gun and effectiveness versus high-speed or high mass missiles and they only put 2 of them per ship thats not even close to enough, must be for morale

File: 1429578802380.gif (385KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 300x240px

>>31008972
i would like proof that the machine is not of chinese origin

gatling railguns when

There's a video of Kashtan tests where the missiles missed but the guns did not. The second tests were successfully hit by the missiles.

>>31012697
Saturation is the best bet.
That's why large Russian ships have 8 linked Kashtan systems.

>inb4 just meme-feng 21s barraged

File: thales-goalkeeper-ciws.jpg (51KB, 600x414px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x414px

laughinganimegirls.jpg

Didn't one go full skynet and waste a load of curry sailor's once?

>relying on any kind of ciws

Lel.

There's a reason why it's the last line of defense.

>>31012841
A not a thing of value was lost.

They test them where i work.
Ive seen them and their radars in action.
Very impressive stuff.
They have some issues to iron out, which is why they are still being tested.
One issue was they were wasting ammo shooting at every bit of shrapnel from incoming munition that they destroyed.
So they recalibrated it to be less sensitive, then one day a big enough piece of shrapnel actually managed to hit one of the guns, causing it to catch fire and cook off ammo all night while the firefighters sat way back and watched.

File: 139325095682.jpg (203KB, 1798x1356px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1798x1356px

I'll bet one of those missiles being launched is a P-700 so no, i wont take the challenge with the Phalanx.

I'll take the challenge with a ship outfitted with a dozen Kahstan-M's though.

>>31008972
Why is Phalanx supposedly so bad but CRAM is so damn good? Is it the ship based radar, ASM are too deadly, the C2 system, operators or the guns themselves?

>>31013191
It's not bad at all. It's just shitposting.

>>31012850
is completely right.

If you're relying on ciws for anything, you're already fucked.

>>31013068
>they have some issues to iron out.
Aren't they already, like, 40 years old as a system? If the issues haven't been worked out by now, seems like they aren't going to be.

>>31012572
Soon anon soon

>>31008972
They are better than nothing but honestly aren't very good.

>>31013191
What do you think is easier to destroy? A mortar shell, or a seven ton supersonic missile?

>>31014534
They are indeed. Current Phalanx, Block 1B, is improved a great deal over the early models. The new ones have much improved fire control software, better radar and an IR sensor, upgraded guns and ammunition, and a bunch of stuff to communicate with RAM.

Block 1B Baseline 2 is on the way to provide yet more improvements to detection of boats and seaskimming missiles, as well as maintenance and reliability improvements.

>>31008972
>How effective is Phalanx really?
Considering CIWS is better known as
>Captain! It Won't Shoot!!
the efficiency is not too good. More of a feel-good for the doomed crew.

>>31008972
Even if I had a 95% chance of survival I don't think $8,000 is enough to risk your life over. $100,000 and i'd start putting some serious thought into it.

>>31016556
A mortar shell?

>>31018989
There you go. CRAM targets are generally much easier to kill than huge multiton anti-ship missiles. Even with the upgraded Vulcan gun and Mk. 244 improved penetrators, knocking down heavy-weight high speed missiles can be dicy business. There's a reason why it's towards the bottom of the missile defense pile.

>>31013115
If I recall, SOSNA missiles are shrapnel based not kinetic kill, P-700 has a titanium armor on it's sensors and warhead which makes it invulnerable against shrapnel based missiles and small arms fire like CIWS guns. So Kashtans are still a no go, even Naval Pantsirs will suck.

>>31010803
Phalanx is the very last layer in a very thick defensive set-up that starts with carrier aircraft, goes down to ship-to-air missiles, then short ranger counter missiles and jamming, then if anything gets through that, the idea is that it will be reduced enough that the Phalanx can clean it up.

It's not intended as primary missile defense.

>>31008972

The carrier I was stationed on never had a properly working Phalanx System, ever.
The considered a test passed when the towline for the target drone was cut and the drone fell into the ocean, never in the decade I spent on several carriers did I ever see the target destroyed.
Had quite a few seize up, get too hot and stop working.
The one on the port side of our island like to rotate on its own, when activated and poor it's barrel at the bridge.
Had the RIM-2 Terrier, before the Sea Sparrow system was put aboard, the Rim-2 never worked, it was a complete piece of shit, missiles lifted out and would get stuck, turret would try to turn and everything would go offline, watched a test were the missiles lifted out engaged the turret and continue up and dropped on the deck and one rolled off and into the water.
Glad we still had Marines aboard, those M-60's were our last line of defense against the evil Soviet Union
Haze Grey and rarely under way

>>31008972
AFAIK a ships anti missile defense is the overlapping fire from all nearby ships. Basically with all the valuable targets behind less valuable ones a missile needs to go through a gauntlet of fire to hit anything worth shooting at unless you want to spend forever trying to pick apart the battlegroup from the escorts in.

File: Russian Kashtan CIWS.webm (2MB, 466x370px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 466x370px

>>31008972
>kashtan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPIjQDJQGZU
I'd buy that for a dollar.

>>31024369
Anyone have the video where some Russians use the manual control on one of these to aerate some Somalis?

>>31021036

The missiles that the Kahstan fires (9M311K) are navalized versions of the Tunguska system (9M311) while the missiles of the Sosna system (9M337) are derived from the Tunguska system but different nontheless.

Other then that, you are right, you need a kinetic kill missile to realy fuck up a P-700.

File: 1464271647493.png (221KB, 540x503px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 540x503px

>>31024391
Sounds awesome, I need to see it

>>31014534
And how old is the Abrams?
The military continuously improves everything.
Thats how we move forward.