CIWS : Close-In Warfare System

[Dark Sorrow]

Single barrel flak guns have proven highly inadequate when dealing with sea skimming missiles.

Can you elobrate on this issue!!!

 

[Armand2REP]

Can you elobrate on this issue!!!

Main guns tied into an air-burst role don't have independent targeting but rely on the main sensors which don't include the advanced optical tracking by independent CIWS. It relies on main radar alone. This is far less accurate and problematic for setting the proper fuse times for air-bursts. A missile coming in near the speed of sound is far harder to track and kill than hitting a speed boat. If the fuse doesn't go off at the exact millisecond of a fatal hit, the missile will fly right through it. By the time you actually kill one, you are about out of ammo since you will be firing at much greater ranges than the rotary cannons with a much less effective targeting and engagement system.

 

[slenke]

Main guns tied into an air-burst role don't have independent targeting but rely on the main sensors which don't include the advanced optical tracking by independent CIWS. It relies on main radar alone. This is far less accurate and problematic for setting the proper fuse times for air-bursts. A missile coming in near the speed of sound is far harder to track and kill than hitting a speed boat. If the fuse doesn't go off at the exact millisecond of a fatal hit, the missile will fly right through it. By the time you actually kill one, you are about out of ammo since you will be firing at much greater ranges than the rotary cannons with a much less effective targeting and engagement system.

On the Visby class corvettes, the 57 Mk3 is used together with a Ceros 200 fire control director wich is a radar and optical tracker, so it's not the ships main radar. The ammunition uses proximity fuses as well. Shouldn't this be enough to counter sea-skimming missiles? I'm just asking..

 

[Armand2REP]

On the Visby class corvettes, the 57 Mk3 is used together with a Ceros 200 fire control director wich is a radar and optical tracker, so it's not the ships main radar. The ammunition uses proximity fuses as well. Shouldn't this be enough to counter sea-skimming missiles? I'm just asking..

Optical trackers at sea level don't have much range when coupled with a gun with 17,000 metres range. The gun will open fire on the target about 10km out and will run out of ammo at 5km before the target is within visual tracking range. If you wait until 5km to fire, you greatly decrease your survivability rate and the fuse won't detonate before 500m. You're left with the radar which doesn't have the certainty of a visual track, but at least gives you time to engage. That is why most ships without SAMs layer the gun with a CIWS to give them both options. The other downside to the 57mm shell is that the micro-RF transmitter is underpowerd and has less surface emission area on the shell to give it a reaction to a target, compared to a 76mm fired from an Oto Melara.

 

[sandeepdg]

CIWS Missile Systems:

1)Crotale missile (France)

Manufacturer: Thomson Houston
Weight: 84 kg
Length: 2.89 m
Diameter: 0.15 m
Detonation mechanism: infrared fuse
Engine: solid-propellant fuel
Wingspan: 0.54 m
Flight ceiling: 5,500 m
Speed: 750 m/s
Guidance system: Command Control
Launch platform: Ship, armour

2) RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (USA)

Manufacturer: Raytheon
Weight: 5,777 kg (12,740 lb) (launcher)
73.5 kg (162 lb) (missile)
Length: 2,780 mm (109.4 in) (missile)
Effective range: 7.5 km (4.7 mi)
Warhead: blast fragmentation warhead
Warhead weight: 11.3 kg (24.9 lb)
Primary armament: 21 Rolling Airframe Missiles
Wingspan: 445 mm (17.5 in)
Propellant: solid
Speed: Mach 2.0+
Guidance system: three modes—passive radio frequency/infrared homing, infrared only, or infrared dual mode enabled (radio frequency and infrared homing)
Launch platform: Mk 47 Launcher

3) Sea Wolf missile (UK)

Manufacturer: BAE, MBDA
Weight: 82 kg
Length: 1.9 m
Diameter: 0.30 m
Warhead: 14 kg blast
Detonation mechanism: Proximity or contact
Engine : Blackcap solid fuel sustainer
Wingspan : 0.45 m
Flight ceiling: 3000 m
Speed : Mach 3
Guidance system : Automatic command line of sight
Steering system: Control surfaces
Launch platform : Ship


4) RIM-162 ESSM (USA)

Manufacturer: Raytheon
Weight : 620 lb (280 kg)
Length : 12 ft (3.66 m)
Diameter: 10 in (254 mm)
Warhead: 86 lb (39 kg) blast-fragmentation
Detonation mechanism : Proximity fuze
Engine : Mk 143 Mod 0 solid fuel rocket
Operational range: 27+ nm (50+ km)
Speed : Mach 4+
Guidance system : Midcourse datalink Terminal semi-active radar homing
Launch platform : Mk 41 VLS (RIM-162A/B)
Mk 48 VLS (RIM-162C)
Mk 29 box launcher (RIM-162D)


5) SA-N-11/SA-19 (Russia)

Manufacturer: KBP Instrument Design Bureau
Weight : 57 kg
Length : 2560 mm
Warhead: Continuous-rod and steel cubes
Warhead weight: 9 kg
Detonation mechanism : Laser fuze (Radio fuze 9M311-M1)
Propellant: Solid-fuel rocket
Operational range : 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) (10 kilometres (6.2 mi) 9M311-M1)
Flight altitude : 3,500 metres (11,500 ft)
Boost time : 2 stages: boost to 900m/s, then sustained 600m/s stage to range
Speed : 900 m/s
Guidance system : Radio Command SACLOS
Steering system : rocket motor with four steerable control surfaces
Accuracy: 5 m


6) HQ-7 missile (China)

Developer: China Academy of Defense Technology
Missile dimensions: (length) 3.00 m; (diameter) 0.156 m; (wingspan) 0.55 m
Launch weight: 84.5 kg
Operating altitude: 30~5,000 m (HQ-7/FM-80); 15~6,000 m (FM-90)
Minimum operating range: 500 m (HQ-7/FM-80); 700 m (FM-90)
Max operating range: HQ-7/FM-80 {8,600 m (400 m/s target); 10,000 m (300 m/s target); 12,000 m (slow flying targets)};
Speed: Mach 2.3 (750 m/s)
Guidance: Command + electro-optical tracking
Warhead: HE-FRAG with proximity fuse
Single shot hit probability: 70~80%
Radar detecting range: 18.4 km (HQ-7/FM-80); 25 km (FM-90)
Radar homing range: 17 km (HQ-7/FM-80); 20 km (FM-90)

7) Barak missile (Israel)

Manufacturer: IAI
Weight: 98 kg
Length: 2.1 m
Diameter: 0.18 m
Warhead: 22 kg blast fragmentation warhead
Operational range : 10 km
Speed : Mach 1.7
Guidance system : Radar CLOS (Command to Line-Of-Sight) guidance
Launch platform : Surface Ship

 

[Armand2REP]

They aren't called CIWS missile systems, they are called SHORAD. CIWS is far closer in, like rotary cannons.

 

[sandeepdg]

They aren't called CIWS missile systems, they are called SHORAD. CIWS is far closer in, like rotary cannons.

Mate, I know what Short Range Air Defense is, what I meant to convey way they form a part of the overall CIWS which are combination of guns and missile systems or just gun based systems.

 

[Bleh]

Real or fake?

AK-630 CIWS on a land truck by BEML, because why not? Jugaad at its finest.

Could be useful against drone-swarms, although EM projectiles and broad-spectrum radio-interference is still the best way to take out swarms.

Is it a proposal or a funded peoject

Meant to replace than Bofors L-70b& Zsu-23-2.

That was initial prototype, now looks like this.

Apparently other than wheeled truck mounted, the CIWS is being planned for towed as well as self propelled tracked mounted versions as well.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Real or fake?



Meant to replace than Bofors L-70b& Zsu-23-2.

That was initial prototype, now looks like this.

Apparently other than wheeled truck mounted, the CIWS is being planned for towed as well as self propelled tracked mounted versions as well.

Doesn't look much maneuverable to me, also too big and where are the two radars supposed to go?
Looks like they ripped out the whole system from a ship and put it on truck.

CRAM looks way more compact then this.

Well if it's dirt cheap then it's not a problem go ahead with it.

 

[Bleh]

Doesn't look much maneuverable to me, also too big and where are the two radars supposed to go?

CRAM looks way more compact then this.

Compared to ground clearance of a C-RAM?.. Yes it is.

Good point otherwise, except i don't think they're going for compact... The radars likely will be on a separate vehicle & guide multiple AAA. (Kinda like how not all of our Apaches don't have longbow radars.) It's more cost effective that way.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Compared to ground clearance of a C-RAM?.. Yes it is.

No I'm not just talking about the ground clearance look at our thing it's too bulky just like all soviet weapon system.
It may have a high rate of fire, durability and a long range but not as accurate and efficiency as the Modern ciws counterparts.

Good point otherwise, except i don't think they're going for compact... The radars likely will be on a separate vehicle & guide multiple AAA. (Kinda like how not all of our Apaches don't have longbow radars.)

Keeping the radar and control outpost seperate will invite unnecessary trouble and logistics nightmare. We would have to re adjust the actuator for different locations. At minimum we are looking at three truck mounted system operating together.
Look at the Chinese CIWS, even they have improved on the soviets.

It's more cost effective that way.

I think keeping the radar, gun system, powers system and Fire control system separate will cost us way too much and won't even fulfill it's purpose.
The juggad is way more costly then conventional system.

Ak 630 is an ancient system with old feed mechanism and behemoth oversized motors. The guys at BEML are duping us it ain't even a proper CIWS.

Tho I'm not surprised we don't even manufacture small arms here, bigger calibre rotary machine guns are a far cry.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Even these guys have kept them separate.

Who's bright idea is this?

 

[Bleh]

It's too bulky just like all soviet weapon system.
It may have a high rate of fire, durability and a long range but not as accurate and efficiency as the Modern ciws counterparts...
...I think keeping the radar, gun system, powers system and Fire control system separate will cost us way too much and won't even fulfill it's purpose.
The juggad is way more costly then conventional system.

You can't possibly know any of that just by looking at a 3d CAD-image. We don't have powerful truck platforms.

Can't say whether there making any internal mechanism changes... But fire control software will probably be upgraded.
This things are mainly used to intercept LGB, MLRS rockets, arty-shells etc. So their trajectory is predictable making the open loop fire-control system good enough.

Even these guys have kept them separate.

Who's bright idea is this?

Has it occurred to you, that there could a practical reason?.. Or else Army would have asked for compacted platform.

Just because you think it will be costly & maintenance intensive does not necessarily make it so.

 

[Sanglamorre]

Even these guys have kept them separate.

Who's bright idea is this?

Hmm.

Modular approach? Are they planning to hitch them to other already stationed radars in area? It does seem more convenient to have them seperate so not all of them are taken out in one hit.

Usual maximising jugaad tactics lmao. Looks like someone strapped a Dalek to a chhota hathi

 

[Suryavanshi]

You can't possibly know any of that just by looking at a 3d CAD-image.

Damn I'm judging it from the prototype they have presented, if it's their final product.

Can't say whether there making any internal mechanism changes... But fire control software will probably be upgraded.
This things are mainly used to intercept LGB, MLRS rockets, arty-shells etc. So their trajectory is predictable making the open loop fire-control system good enough.

That's hoping to much from them. It's not tailor made into a land based CIWS.

Has it occurred to you, that there could a practical reason?.. Or else Army would have asked for compacted platform.

Why create such unnecessary variable parameters in the system.
Unlike Anti ballistic missile bullets don't have active data link.
Hope it works out but imo it's heading towards another INSAS like saga.

 

[Bleh]

Damn I'm judging it from the prototype they have presented, if it's their final product.

Ok, that's fair... but it is not the final product as you see that tech-demo & the newer CAD are quite different. Possibly the vehicle will change shapa as well.

Why create such unnecessary variable parameters in the system.
Unlike Anti ballistic missile bullets don't have active data link.

Modularity is not a "variable parameter".

This is probably cost related. A single radar to relay multiple guns may also increase hit probability... CIWS tracks the trajectory of guided or unguided weapons & predicts a path on which it sprays cannon-fire. No need for data link. I didn't get why you said that.

 

[garg_bharat]

Even these guys have kept them separate.

Who's bright idea is this?

This could be for ease of transportation. Or multiple guns directed by a single radar.

 

[Tanmay]

No I'm not just talking about the ground clearance look at our thing it's too bulky just like all soviet weapon system.
It may have a high rate of fire, durability and a long range but not as accurate and efficiency as the Modern ciws counterparts.


Keeping the radar and control outpost seperate will invite unnecessary trouble and logistics nightmare. We would have to re adjust the actuator for different locations. At minimum we are looking at three truck mounted system operating together.
Look at the Chinese CIWS, even they have improved on the soviets.

I think keeping the radar, gun system, powers system and Fire control system separate will cost us way too much and won't even fulfill it's purpose.
The juggad is way more costly then conventional system.

Ak 630 is an ancient system with old feed mechanism and behemoth oversized motors. The guys at BEML are duping us it ain't even a proper CIWS.

Tho I'm not surprised we don't even manufacture small arms here, bigger calibre rotary machine guns are a far cry.

The systems being provided by L&T and DRDO etc are similar to Rheinmetall Oerlikon Skyshield® Air Defence System which was to be used for IAF and IA base defence.

Unfortunately it ran into bribery issues. Hence I think Indian companies came up withh a similar system of separate Gun and Separate Radar. A single radar could control 2/4 such guns and reduce costs for bsae defence as compared to one gun one radar.


https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...r-defence-guns-found/articleshow/57583079.cms

The contract, which ET has seen, was signed between Oerlikon and MS Sahni of the Mokul Group, an arms dealer under investigation in the corruption case, by CBI. The consultancy agreement specifies that commissions will be paid on two products sold to the Indian government — “air defence gun system Skyshield35 and air defence missile systems”.

Also do note if these were to be towed to forward locations, it would be difficult for such 8x8 or 10x10 huge trucks to navigate smaller radius turns of hills. The L&T gun and Radar combo is good and compact. Easily transportable to forward locations and easy to hide in forest areas.

Dont compare to CRAM, compare to the Rheimtall Oerlikon, which was the original choice.

P.S. while Rheimtall got blacklisted here, Pakis got the same system from there IIRC.

 

[Suryavanshi]

The systems being provided by L&T and DRDO etc are similar to Rheinmetall Oerlikon Skyshield® Air Defence System which was to be used for IAF and IA base defence.

Unfortunately it ran into bribery issues. Hence I think Indian companies came up withh a similar system of separate Gun and Separate Radar. A single radar could control 2/4 such guns and reduce costs for bsae defence as compared to one gun one radar.


https://m.economictimes.com/news/de...r-defence-guns-found/articleshow/57583079.cms



Also do note if these were to be towed to forward locations, it would be difficult for such 8x8 or 10x10 huge trucks to navigate smaller radius turns of hills. The L&T gun and Radar combo is good and compact. Easily transportable to forward locations and easy to hide in forest areas.

Dont compare to CRAM, compare to the Rheimtall Oerlikon, which was the original choice.

P.S. while Rheimtall got blacklisted here, Pakis got the same system from there IIRC.

So essentially we intend to mate the CIWS with air defence network and radar both big and small?

A behemoth task but very increasing and path breaking nonetheless.