This weapon system has a strict goal in mind. Its purpose is a last line of defense for navy ships. Example missile is fired at ship all other system fail so phalanx takes it out by radar and other tracking devices. There for reload is not a major issue. Obviously a entire load would not be used to engage one target.
That's a very slow and inefficient loading/unloading design. People are going to stand around on deck, loading it in a war zone?
It should have a "loading position", align with loading channels that slide out from a nearby riser, and dock on the side of it. The chain of shells should feed up from below decks into it via a mechanical conveying system at much higher speed than that. A separate waste channel can take up the empty cartridges below decks.
@DMahalko For once something the Navy uses works as advertised. The F-18 uses the same M61 gun, and is "supposed" to work much the same way. The rounds come in a giant box with a feed chute that we hook up to the jet,and us designed to dual upload/download with hydraulic power applied. Nope. Rounds shift around in the LALS and if anything slips the brass gets ripped apart and jams the whole thing. For the better part of a decade the only authorized way to load is using a giant hand crank.
@DMahalko That creates a lot of problems on ships.Saltwater,ingress of water,extra hydraulics,extra storage space to be created on board,plus the added weight high up on the ship.Twenty minutes loading by hand is cheaper,easier,and less intrusive.The Phalanx can be unbolted from the the deck,control cabinet isnt much bigger than a filing cabinet.Things have to be compact on a warship,and easy to do a changeout when needed.
A "combat reload" (where brass. links, unfired ammo, and cans just go over the side) can be done in under 5 minutes. I used to be mount captain on one of these, and had my guys reloading the 980-round drum of the block 0 version in about 3-1/2 minutes.
CIWS is designed to continue fighting even when the ship is heavily battle damaged -- as long as you have fire main pressure (for cooling), raw 440V 3-phase electrical power, and human beings it will function.
@TagFerret certainly, as long as it doesn't glitch when placing the loader... and of course if you have 4 or more human beings to operate it simultaneously, and all the rounds present on deck.... in my world 15 minutes sound more reasonable for the block 1a system..
@DMahalko the company says the searched for one to prove them it can be loaded faster, but noone has done it quicker than this. the israelis have doubled its capacity of rounds somewhow, and that's all I know. well approximatelly 200 million would it suffice?
@DMahalko the company says the searched for one to prove them it can be loaded faster, but noone has done it quicker than this. the israelis have doubled its capacity of rounds somewhow, and that's all I know.
@DMahalko You wouldn't be loading it in a war zone because these weapons are anti-missile defense. But i agree, that's a terribly uneffiecuent reload.
@DMahalko My thoughts exactly. These are designed for missile defence, right? and The Bad guy(s) aren't just going to fire one or two at you so how many targets can this engage? and for how long before you have to lolipoping around reloading like that...
I think the Goalkeeper CIWS System is the upgrade to this version and it's probably 10 times more expensive.
We build what Congress pays for, not what is best. Cost provides constraints, of which you seem to be unaware. The system you describe would not only add tremendous cost, it would be nearly impossible to maintain an acceptable MTBF. The loading method selected is not that much slower and can be maintained with much more reliability at a much lower cost.
@daedra01 who the hell needs to relaod when your pumping 3000 rounds a minute through whatever the hells infront of you.... if you need to reload after that then you fail.
Comment removed
Aev308 1 month ago
This weapon system has a strict goal in mind. Its purpose is a last line of defense for navy ships. Example missile is fired at ship all other system fail so phalanx takes it out by radar and other tracking devices. There for reload is not a major issue. Obviously a entire load would not be used to engage one target.
funkdoobie89 10 months ago
@funkdoobie89 it would if I was the trigger man
alderaforall 10 months ago
That's a very slow and inefficient loading/unloading design. People are going to stand around on deck, loading it in a war zone?
It should have a "loading position", align with loading channels that slide out from a nearby riser, and dock on the side of it. The chain of shells should feed up from below decks into it via a mechanical conveying system at much higher speed than that. A separate waste channel can take up the empty cartridges below decks.
How much did we pay for that?
DMahalko 1 year ago 6
@DMahalko For once something the Navy uses works as advertised. The F-18 uses the same M61 gun, and is "supposed" to work much the same way. The rounds come in a giant box with a feed chute that we hook up to the jet,and us designed to dual upload/download with hydraulic power applied. Nope. Rounds shift around in the LALS and if anything slips the brass gets ripped apart and jams the whole thing. For the better part of a decade the only authorized way to load is using a giant hand crank.
EyebrowZing 1 year ago
@DMahalko That creates a lot of problems on ships.Saltwater,ingress of water,extra hydraulics,extra storage space to be created on board,plus the added weight high up on the ship.Twenty minutes loading by hand is cheaper,easier,and less intrusive.The Phalanx can be unbolted from the the deck,control cabinet isnt much bigger than a filing cabinet.Things have to be compact on a warship,and easy to do a changeout when needed.
saltydog45 11 months ago
And if they survive after emptying the magazine at multiple targets.they would be incredibly lucky with the modern antiship missile nowdays.
saltydog45 11 months ago
@DMahalko
A "combat reload" (where brass. links, unfired ammo, and cans just go over the side) can be done in under 5 minutes. I used to be mount captain on one of these, and had my guys reloading the 980-round drum of the block 0 version in about 3-1/2 minutes.
CIWS is designed to continue fighting even when the ship is heavily battle damaged -- as long as you have fire main pressure (for cooling), raw 440V 3-phase electrical power, and human beings it will function.
$3.5 Million in 1980.
TagFerret 11 months ago 4
@TagFerret certainly, as long as it doesn't glitch when placing the loader... and of course if you have 4 or more human beings to operate it simultaneously, and all the rounds present on deck.... in my world 15 minutes sound more reasonable for the block 1a system..
atsimas 11 months ago
@DMahalko the company says the searched for one to prove them it can be loaded faster, but noone has done it quicker than this. the israelis have doubled its capacity of rounds somewhow, and that's all I know. well approximatelly 200 million would it suffice?
atsimas 11 months ago
@DMahalko the company says the searched for one to prove them it can be loaded faster, but noone has done it quicker than this. the israelis have doubled its capacity of rounds somewhow, and that's all I know.
atsimas 11 months ago
@DMahalko You wouldn't be loading it in a war zone because these weapons are anti-missile defense. But i agree, that's a terribly uneffiecuent reload.
blackvenom530 9 months ago
@DMahalko My thoughts exactly. These are designed for missile defence, right? and The Bad guy(s) aren't just going to fire one or two at you so how many targets can this engage? and for how long before you have to lolipoping around reloading like that...
I think the Goalkeeper CIWS System is the upgrade to this version and it's probably 10 times more expensive.
Infloresence 9 months ago
@Infloresence this is not transformers :) exocets aren't THAT cheap
StargateMunky 7 months ago
@DMahalko 6 months ho... if you need to reload that thing during a battle you are seriously in the shit to begin with.
The amount of ammo it takes is staggering....
It's a last line of defense tool to begin with.
StargateMunky 7 months ago
@DMahalko
We build what Congress pays for, not what is best. Cost provides constraints, of which you seem to be unaware. The system you describe would not only add tremendous cost, it would be nearly impossible to maintain an acceptable MTBF. The loading method selected is not that much slower and can be maintained with much more reliability at a much lower cost.
killmerhonda 2 months ago
Goddamn that's fast!
antidiz 1 year ago
'
this CIWS need to use double guns and not one
bestamerica 1 year ago
i want one
xsvegosl66 1 year ago 2
in combat this reload procedure is too slow IMHO
daedra01 1 year ago
@daedra01 who the hell needs to relaod when your pumping 3000 rounds a minute through whatever the hells infront of you.... if you need to reload after that then you fail.
MrTrickydick666 1 year ago
@MrTrickydick666
Several incoming threats, maybe?
Sephyricon 1 year ago
Comment removed
daxplil 1 year ago
How much ammunition does the drum contain?
choctaw111 2 years ago
@choctaw111
The block 0 version used to hold 980 rounds. The newer Block 1 version (as seen in this video) holds 1500 if I remember correctly.
TagFerret 11 months ago
which lpd is this?
DonkeyPunch28 3 years ago
we weren't "playing " we were working.. lol i saw mw payton and fc1
PHAEDRIDER 3 years ago