BBRRRRRAAAAAPPPPPPFFFTTT~~~

Friendly that the Phalanx CIWS has:

>Zero successful live engagements
>Inferior range to Eastern counterparts
>2 deaths and 5 injuries of friendly personnel

Under its belt. What went wrong?

I only hate it because it looks retarded

>>33821710
It's fucking good at hitting shit a little to good for its own good. It shot the bridge on its own ship in a target practice exercise. It thinks anything that moves is a threat.

>>33821744
Not only it looks retarded, but it also is retarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Incidents

>>33821710
Is there any CIWS that has a successful live fire engagement?

>>33821791
Goalkeeper has been succesfull in life-fire excercises and shot some somali boats.

>>33821791
I think AK-630 shot some pirates, but that's not really what a live engagement usually means. Still Phalanx has a horrible service record.

File: hitlers wet dream meme.jpg (58KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x360px

>>33821689
>Putting a completely independent system that shoots on everything that moves on a ship
what could possibly go wrong?

>>33821791
lacking of real engagement there aren't any, but there are a lot of other systems that perform much better in exercises

>>33821795
>>33821799
Really doesn't answer my question as the person I was asking was clearly referring to actual incoming missile intercepts.

File: slavshit.png (23KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x480px

>>33821710
>Zero successful live engagements
Same for nuclear ICBM. Does this make them shit?

File: 1464128863580.jpg (38KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x533px

>>33821831
I know. I just wanted to tell you about the goalkeeper.

>>33821710

Kill yourself.

>>33821710
>>33821760
It sounds like the engineers should have added zones that the CIWS couldn't engage targets in.

>>33821791
All the damn time. Google CRAM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsVUISS8oHs

>>33821710
Reminder that the phalanx has shot down aircraft in a live fire environment and no other aircraft have.

>>33821957
Just a shame they were friendly aircraft.

>>33821966
Irrelevant. The system performed as designed.

>>33821982
>they were friendly aircraft
>Irrelevant
>The system performed as designed
>friendly aircraft

>>33822064
Did they Phalanx have a system to identify friend or foe? If it did then it did not perform as intended. If it did not, then it did its job by shooting down any target in its engagement zone.

File: 1b640ad3d68ac4c340bff3d855d4c4c1006b6c67_full.jpg (6KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 184x184px

>>33821689
The land version is one of the loudest god damn things I've ever heard.

I didn't know it was there because it was around a wall, and was walking by it one night, and heard "wwwwweeeEEEE BBBBRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAA".

Luckily there was no one around to see me jump into the prone.

>>33822095
If I heard this go off without expecting it, I'd pump prone too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILcVt9p7cug

>>33822064
Yep.

>>33822091
Nope. No IFF system.

File: KASHTAN.jpg (398KB, 1000x577px)

398KB, 1000x577px

Reminder that kashtan is superior in every possible way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1PnTrLJr4

>>33822168
Obvious human error then. Someone failed to make sure the airspace was clear and the Phalanx treated it like any other target. Sucks hard that a friendly got shot down, but if you don't do your damn job right then good people die.

File: 23472347234.jpg (74KB, 864x180px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 864x180px

>>33821841
>Same for nuclear ICBM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDL_pIPScSI

>>33822179
Except for the small matter of weighing three times as much as a Phalanx, requiring a shit ton more deck space, etc.

>>33821710

CIWS is the same as CRAM, and it's plenty effective. No one has the balls to shoot at our ships.

>>33822476
Thanks for the Talk Talk music video.

File: 20380 steregushchiy (5).jpg (344KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1632x1224px

>>33822513
Which is a moot point, since you can easily fit it on a corvette.

>>33822591
>Which is a moot point, since you can easily fit it on a corvette.
Someone's never worked in naval architecture.

In short, for a system so low priority in the layered AAA ship defense scheme, it takes up an astonishing fraction of displacement and volume (not to mention mass above the waterline) in that corvette.

File: 11661e hq-012 ly thai to.jpg (145KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1000x667px

>>33822625
Which is once again a moot point, since you can factually fit it on a small warship. It doesn't matter if it's larger in comparison with Phalanx, what matters is that it is small enough even for a corvette. Naturally it weights more, since it's a vastly superiour system with incomparably more firepower and automated reload capability., while Phalanx is just an AK-630 analogue.

>>33822690
>what matters is that it is small enough even for a corvette.

Lots of things are small enough for a corvette.

Phalanx is literally small enough to operationally work off a flatbed trailer.

The kashtan needs it's own weapon station.

Gun based CIWS is losing favor anyways. Missiles are superior and the RIM-116 has 21 missiles ready to go. SEARAM has 11, both compared to the 8 of the kashtan.

>>33822755
>literally small enough to operationally work off a flatbed trailer.
Wow so revolutionary.

Would it surprise you that Tunguskas have been mounted on trucks for about 20 years prior to C-RAM being a thing?

>>33821689
why put an r2 unit on your guns silly murricans?

>>33822820
>Tunguskas

Tunguskas =/ kashtan

File: US_Navy_040611-N-1512S-048_Sailors_from_Combat_Systems_department_upload_a_Rolling_Airframe_Missile_aboard_the_amphibious_assault_ship.jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

>>33822755
Which means that size and all the more so weight is barely an argument when you are comparing an AK-630 analogue to a system with 2 guns, 8 missiles, both TV and radar guidance systems and a reload mechanism.
>RIM-116 has 21 missiles ready to go. SEARAM has 11, both compared to the 8 of the kashtan
It's 8 ready to go and another 24 to 32 in the loading mechanism. Of course with the reload speed of 90 seconds they won't help against a massive saturation attack, but that's still more missiles than RIM-116 after just two reloads. How much time does it take reload a RAM launcher? Oh, right...

>>33822843
And Kashtan is better than Phalanx, which was the point.

>>33822755
>Missiles are superior
Oh gee, might that just mean that a system that uses missiles and guns is vastly superior to a system that uses just a gun? One can only wonder.

>>33822877
>Which means that size and all the more so weight is barely an argument

Wrong. Phalanx does not need a dedicated weapons station. The kashtan does.

>reload time

On a CWIS is redundant. It's meant as a last resort. Any time you go to reload you are either dead, or have plenty of time.

>>33822885
Kashtan requires a command modal (aka, a mast radar) and is useless if the main power goes, or the most is damaged.

Phalanx works of of emergency power, and requires nothing but it's own radar/FLIR.

>>33821710
Complete shit when put on boats, but when put on land they do just fine.
They just need more a static operating environment.

>>33822893
No, I means you are better off ditching the gun and getting more missiles. The gun is a waste.

>>33822927
That's because Phalanx is an AK-630 analogue, while Kashtan is a superiour and a more capable system.
>On a CWIS is redundant. It's meant as a last resort
Only that once a RAM launcher expends all its missiles it takes a substantial amount of time and personnel to reload, while Kashtan does not. It can proceed preforming its function as a last resort for a longer amount of time before it needs a manual reload.
>>33822953
>Kashtan requires a command modal (aka, a mast radar)
No.
>>33822965
So since gun is a waste (it really is not) Kashtan is better than Phalanx.

>>33823054
>No.

Yes.

http://www.kbptula.ru/en/productions/air-defense-weapon-systems/kashtan-m

>>33823054
>It can proceed preforming its function as a last resort for a longer amount of time before it needs a manual reload.

No, because if it needs to reload in any logical scenario the threat is either gone, or the ship dead. The kashtan can go 8 missiles, the RAM can go 21 before either death comes or reload.

>>33823071
>A definitive advantage of the system is the availability of two armament types, as well as radar and optical control systems within single turret mount, which taken together enhance its combat efficiency as compared to its counterparts having each of the armaments separately.
>System provides: <...> automatic operation.
Thanks for proving my point and disproving your own.

>>33823091
"Any logical scenario" as in exclusively and solely a massive WWIII tier saturation attack.
>The kashtan can go 8 missiles, the RAM can go 21
Kashtan can go 8 missiles and 2 guns, Phalanx can go one single gun. Kashtan is objectively superiour.

>>33823098
Nope.

It still needs search and track radar to perform it's function. Terminal FCR is onboard, but is one piece of the pie and can't function on its own.

>>33823115
I'm not talking about phalanx, I'm talking about rim-116.

If you want we can go SEARAM, but again that's a smaller footprint system (with 3 more missiles, but no guns)

>>33823117
Source is in link..

>Provides target lock-on in accordance with the target designation data received from the command module, a target and SAM tracking with radar and optronic guidance system, target engagement with missile and gun armaments at several lines.

File: cease your faggotry.jpg (24KB, 261x189px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 261x189px

>>33823117
It literally can, as you proved by posting the link.
>>33823120
>I'm not talking about phalanx
And I do, since this is what the argument is about. You brought up missiles the moment you realised you can't dispute the upper hand Kashtan holds over Phalanx, which was that anon's original sententia.

>>33823115
So then...

RIM-116>Kashtan=SEAram>Phalanx

>>33823144
It can't, see >>33823130

Kashtan is command module plus armament module. This gives it automatic operation.

The armament module cannot attack without queing from command.

>>33823144
So you agree rrim-116 is better?

>>33823149
RIM can't reload in active battle
Kashtan can

>>33823186
See
>>33823091

>>33823202
Kashtan have more than 8 because reload is fast as fuck

>>33823231
Fast as fuck is not fast enough with vampires at 10km.

Even the subsonic harpoon will be at target before reload is up.

>>33823149
>>33823179
Against a massive saturation attack RIM-116 is obviously better. In any other scenario Kashtan is more effective. Phalanx is just crap compared to the two.
>>33823202
"Any logical scenario" as in exclusively and solely a massive WWIII tier saturation attack.
>>33823160
It's like saying S-400 can not operate without Nebo-M radar network. combat module can track and lock on targets on its own. Command modules provides it with a better capability to lock on a larger amount of targets.

>>33823273
>In any other scenario Kashtan is more effective

I fail to see a situation where kashtan would be more effective, not equally.

>>33823273
>"Any logical scenario" as in exclusively and solely a massive WWIII tier saturation attack.

I fail to see any other attack that would penetrate main defenses and get to CWIS.

>>33823273
>It's like saying S-400 can not operate without Nebo-M radar network

S-400 is not kashtan.

>combat module can track and lock on targets on its own.

It absolutely can not.

>>33823260
A subsonic Harpoon is a food for guns.
>>33823279
Any other situation that does not imply a massive saturation attack that would require more than 8 missiles per 90 seconds per post. So pretty much any other naval or coastal engagement, ever.
>>33823290
Towelheads generally can't penetrate MBTs with their missiles, but sometimes they can. Should I remind you the recent incident with an attack against a ship using ATGM? This scenario is much more likely to be faced my a ship nowadays compared to WWIII. On a more naval note, the engagement between Georgian missile boats (or corvettes, or whatever just they had) and the Russian Black Sea Fleet during the 888 war. Do you think Russians launched a massive saturation attack? No, they fired one Malakhit.

>>33823358
>A subsonic Harpoon is a food for guns.

Not with the OODA loop, even in auto mode. I needs to fire, see effect on target, get new target, fire. One target at a time, takes time to do the above, and that's without any reengagements.

>So pretty much any other naval or coastal engagement, ever.

Would not need the CWIS at all. So effectively the same.

>>33821744
Function over form, friend.

>>33823358
>This scenario is much more likely to be faced my a ship nowadays compared to WWIII.

Which means the CWIS will not be used, or extremely sparingly.

So, both systems are equal?

>>33823296
It absolutely can, as it is clearly visible from your own link. It track and lock on targets by itself. Command module increases the amount of targets from 6 to 30.

>>33823412
>It track and lock on targets by itself.

Apologies, I thought you meant search and track. Yes, it can track targets handed down from the command module. It cannot search, thus is useless on its own.

It needs to track it's own SAM BTW, to tell it when to explode (the kashtan missiles don't use the laser detonator)

>Command module increases the amount of targets from 6 to 30.

This is stated nowhere in the source, nor anywhere online.

What is stated is.. "Provides target lock-on in accordance with the target designation data received from the command module".

It can't do that on its own.

American CIWS is much more superior and combat proven.

The seaRAM has 21 missiles while the Pantsir only has 18.

>>33823533
SEAram has 11 and operates as an all in one compact system.

RIM-116 operates like the kashtan, and control systems are distributed across the ship, but has 21.

>>33823566
To add, both use the same missile.

>>33823390
How does it make Harpoon any less of a food for guns?
>Would not need the CWIS at all.
Because you say so, while ignoring the examples I provided?
>>33823407
And what will be used instead then? CIWS are made specifically for engaging targets in close range, which is coincidentally exactly the range from which some towelhead will fire a missile at you.
>>33823473
What is stated is that the combat module has target tracking equipment, both radar and optical.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-16.html
Here it is specified that the combat module can track/lock on 6 targets and engage one.
>>33823566
RIM-116 is just a launcher with missiles, it can't track targets or lock on them. SeaRAM can.

>>33823659
>What is stated is that the combat module has target tracking equipment, both radar and optical.

Yes, for tracking. Tracking is not search, and is useless on its own.

>Here it is specified that the combat module can track/lock on 6 targets and engage one.

Yes. But without search it does not know what and where to track.

>>33823659
>How does it make Harpoon any less of a food for guns?

Because you will get one, maybe two intercepts over the guns range with the harpoon.

>>33823659
>which is coincidentally exactly the range from which some towelhead will fire a missile at you.

So, again, both are equal. Unless you are starting the towelheads are going to fire 8 missiles, give you a minute and a half to reload, and fire 8 more, give you another minute and a half and a half to reload, then fire more than 5 more missiles.

Somehow while avoiding your main gun/other assets.

>>33823659
The missiles need the command module, it directly guides the missile.


>The 9M311 is a SACLOS guided missile, however, it is steered automatically by the command module.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashtan_CIWS

>>33821982
Spoken like a true engineer

>>33823883
Ur a cheeky cunt I'll give you that,m8

>>33821689
https://youtu.be/_Xl-EjbGPok