So how do CIWS systems differentiate between friendly and hostile

>>31572853
Turning them on and off

IFF

>>31572892
This
>>31572901
This

And the fact that you rarely land at 800 km/h

>>31572892
This Ciws are not allways on

They are on when the big radars or awac detect incoming missiles they dont land planes when that is happening.

They don't
which is why they are left off all the time, and never ready when they are needed.

>>31572959
They're always on, they're just rarely on automatic. They'll require operator approval to fire on a target.

>>31572986

CIWS on automatic is fucking scary.

>>31572986
>>31572892
>>31572928

Okay, but then how do they know when to turn it on?

>>31572901
It depends on the type of system.

RAM for instance is tied to the ship's radar system and can differentiate, and acts like any other missile system. Though once it's fired it just starts looking for radar or heat signatures.

SeaRAM (the system in OP's pic) and Phalanx have their own radar systems and don't give a shit about IFF. They prioritize targets based on movement in relation to the ship (is it heading away or towards the ship, is it on an impact trajectory, how fast is it going).

>>31573059
The system detects a possible target on an impact trajectory and alerts the operator.

>>31573059

When you're in the middle of the fucking ocean behind more radars than half of the civilian airfields combined, it's pretty hard for things to creep up on you unnoticed.

>>31573059
"Are you somewhere that you can reasonably expect to be attacked?"
and
"Has the political situation presented a situation where you are at risk of being attacked?"
or
"Has there been any indication of a threat by radar or other means?"

Then turn them on.

>>31573131
>it's pretty hard for things to creep up on you unnoticed.
Not when it's a hypersonic glide kill vehicle from a ballistic missile speeding toward you from above at Mach 5

>>31573131
>>31573153

But how do you know that it isn't just a friendly aircraft passing by?

>>31573359

That's the exact opposite of creeping up on you, retard.
It's coming in so hard and fast you don't have time to deal with it.

>>31573359
I think you're mixing up detect and intercept. It's not hard to see those, it's actually pretty easy, the difficulty in shooting down those is intercepting them in time in the right phase with the right missile.

File: 1438051217235.jpg (86KB, 755x462px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 755x462px

>>31572853
IFF

>>31572853

>what is the entire point of a transponder, the post

>>31573364
You're some kind of special retard

>>31573364
Because friendlies have transponders and respond to radio calls.

>>31573364
>>31573638
In addition if it's blazing towards your ship at several times the speed of sound it's probably an asshole.

>>31573680

Not all missiles are supersonic.

>>31573388
>>31573391
>Carriers and escorts can detect ballistic missile launches thousands of miles away

retards

you will have 8-10 minutes between detection by SATELLITE, assessment by NORAD, determination that it isn't a false alarm, and finally communication to underway carrier.

Remember when a CIWS did not detect a drone heading for the ship and just allowed it to hit the ship?

Remember when a CIWS made the only hits against the USS Missouri?

>>31573059
Dammit you're that warship iceberg guy
Don't you lie to me

>>31573912
But the ciws did detect the drone, and told the operator to fire at it.

>>31573912
It did detect the drone. The operator declined to engage it since he knew it was the drone and assumed they weren't actually going to hit the ship with it (it was supposed to break off).

Specifically the operator received a "recommend fire" alert on his console and told the AWC, who didn't let him fire, presumably because he knew the drone was supposed to break off, as it wasn't a firing exercise, it was a tracking exercise. They were supposed to just test the fire control system, but it wasn't a missile-ex, so there was no range safety officer in the CIC as no launch was actually planned.

>>31574051
To go further on the subject, I don't think the drone controller even announced a rouge drone till after it had hit the ship, but it's been a while since I read the report so I might be mistaken.

>>31573819
It's not detecting the launches, it's perfectly capable of detecting the missile.

>>31574026
>>31574051
Butthurt American apologists. If it happened in China it wouldn't even happen. And Russia will just miss.

>>31574088
He called rogue drone 17 seconds after the drone hit the ship.

So a little late.

File: Batman.gif (408KB, 500x345px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 500x345px

>>31573924

>Dammit you're that warship iceberg guy

Well, yes. How did you figure it out?

>>31574107
Hey, they should have never lost control of the drone, but the incident had nothing to do with with a failure of the ciws system.

>>31573819
That doesn't sound like sufficient time.

>>31574252
Damn anon
You must be as bored as I am

>>31572928
>rarely
git gud