Talk:Close-in weapon system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Goalkeeper info 2 Automagical CIWS 3 Check out this link. 4 question 5 CIWS Missile Systems 6 RIM-66/SM-2 Standard Missile 7 Oto 76mm DART in CIWS mode

[edit] Goalkeeper info

Some information about the Goalkeeper CIWS can be found at [1]

To remind me when I make the article sometime in my Copious Free Time. Feel free to beat me to it. :-) Kim Bruning 14:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Automagical CIWS

A CIWS is an autonomous system. The computer selects the target. This dependancy on computer decision may explain the Captain/Christ It Wont Shoot.

Sure -- no human being would possess a quick enough nervous system to handle up to several incoming missiles and planes in essentially the same instant. The crew's nervous systems would be busy at work making them -eh- nervous, I guess... --Wernher 19:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)\

The CIWS can work in either a semi-automatic or fully-automatic mode. In semi-automatic, the gun tracks a target as usual, but does not fire until a human operator tells it to do so. I would imagine this would be useful against ASuW aircraft and slow moving ASMs like the Silkworm. It would also be very helpful in an environment in which both friendly missiles are outgoing, and enemy missiles are incoming, as the Phalanx can not determine friend from foe (if a SH-60 Seahawk helicopter tries to land on the back of, say, a Perry-class frigate and the CIWS is in fully-automatic mode, the Seahawk will be fired on). Fully automatic would be best for use against supersonic and multiple targets. (USMA2010 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Logically, I would think the CIWS would only fire on inbound targets above a certain speed, ergo the outbound missles will not be fired upon. This could be accomplished using doppler. Also, the helicopter would only be going at a speed not approaching an inbound target and the speed of the rotating blades would not meet the profile of an inbound target.

[edit] Check out this link.

http://www.defencejournal.com/nov98/angrysea.htm

This page also contains the same dual spelling of Mr. Hanif's first name. Is there any way to verify the gentleman's name?

[edit] question

Can the system use 2 guns per target? or is each CIWS gun/kit on a separate computer? I saw the control panel, but i guess the navy doesn't want people to know how to run killing machines. Kinda like how railroads dissagree with train sim games, that treach people to run trains.

[edit] CIWS Missile Systems

"The current trend in CIWS is to use missile systems instead of guns, because guns have certain limitations ... Because of their greater range, a missile-CIWS can also be dual-used as a short-ranged area-defence anti-air weapon, eliminating the need of a second mount for this role. " Is it just me, or is this just a little to biased against guns and towards the use of missiles as point defence? Explaining the negatives of one type of system (ie guns), and the benefits of another type (missiles) kinda skews the point a little. Perhaps if someone mentioned disadvantages of missiles (such as once those 6 missiles have been expended, the mount is totally useless), and the benefits of guns (fire "warning shots", <10 min reloading time for Goalkeeper, more difficult to jam or whatever), this might help to make the article more neutral. 202.72.148.102 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a question was the use of a sea dart agaisnt an exocet missle the first combat use of a missle on missle engagement.This was during the gulf war i think when an iraqi plane fired on a us ship and a royal navy ship shot the missle down after the us ship launched chaff and tried to engage with a phalax system. Corustar 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC). i have just found the info on the phalax page.Corustar 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RIM-66/SM-2 Standard Missile

I know that the Standard has the ability to intercept some cruise and anti-ship missiles, and was wondering if this would justify it's mentioning in this article? Any thoughts? (USMA2010 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

The Sea Dart also has this ability, however its not its primary job. so maybe mentioning about SAM which can intercept missles would be relevant to the article.Corustar 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Article discusses Close In Weapon Systems - missiles like Standard and Sea Dart are very definately classified as Area Defence missile systems, and as such are not "Close In" - whether they can intercept missiles or not. Further, i dont believe that Standards are overly effective in launching/intercepting inbound anti-ship missiles (especially supersonic) within a 2km range that is typical of CIWS systems, let alone multiple missiles - the reaction system simply isnt fast enough i would imagine (particularly with a 1s warm up time of Standards). At the extreme, rifle/pistol bullets are capable of shooting down stuff ("Golden BB"), and presumably missiles as well, however this is highly improbable - though extending your argument that they can destroy missiles would mean that every small arms would also deserve a mention. Thus, i dont think Area AA should be included in the article. 58.7.186.48 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oto 76mm DART in CIWS mode

What does everyone think about adding main gun with anti-missile guided munitions used in CIWS role? -- Adeptitus (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can show that it is meant for and actually can knock out the missile in the last few seconds before impact (the meaning of "close-in") then I don't see a problem. Roger (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)