• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada Considering Sending Phalanx to Afghanistan

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
Canada Strips Ships for Afghan War Effort

November 13, 2006: Noting that the United States sent several Phalanx anti missile systems to Iraq last year, to protect the Green Zone from rocket and mortar attack, Canada is considering taking Phalanx systems from some of its warships, and shipping them to Afghanistan, to protect the Canadian base at Kandahar. The Canadian Phalanx systems will need some new software, which the Americans are apparently willing to provide.



The American Phalanx anti missile system sent to Iraq, were modified to destroy rockets and mortar shells fired into the Green Zone (the large area in Baghdad turned into an American base). The Phalanx is a 20mm cannon designed to defend American warships, by destroying anti-ship missiles. Phalanx does this by using a radar that immediately starts firing at any incoming missile it detects. The modified versions sent to Iraq, called the C-RAM (Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar) system has had it's software modified to detect smaller objects (like 82mm mortar shells). The original Phalanx, it was found, could take out incoming 155mm artillery shells. This capability is what led to C-RAM. The other modifications include linking Phalanx to the Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar and Q-36 Target Acquisition Radar. When these radars detect incoming fire, C-RAM points toward the incoming objects and prepares to fire at anything that comes within range (about 2,000 meters) of its cannon. C-RAM also uses high explosive 20mm shells, that detonate near the target, spraying it with fragments. By the time these fragments reach the ground, they are generally too small to injure anyone. The Vulcan used 20mm depleted uranium shells, to slice through incoming missiles. The C-RAM, like the Vulcan, fires shells at the rate of 75 per second. Another advantage of C-RAM, is that it makes a distinctive noise when firing, warning people in the Green Zone that a mortar or rocket attack is underway, giving people an opportunity to duck inside if they are out and about. Without C-RAM to stop the incoming shells, they usually land without hitting people. The Green Zone is a big place, but something usually gets damaged during each attack, and sometimes the shells are duds, meaning they remain dangerous until found and removed. It took about a year, from the time an army general demanded that some kind of anti-mortar weapon be found, until the first C-RAMs arrived in Iraq. Tests showed that C-RAM could knock down 70-80 percent of the rockets and mortar shells fired at it.
 
Be a heck of a thing to have a "Blue On Blue" with.
 
Mind you this is an option that already seems to have been considered and put on the far back burner when talking to our MARS types. Chances of actually happening they put it at a 1 in 10. Think of it...these weapons are designed to lock on targets like SS-N-22s  not mortar and RPG rounds....
 
Another discussion on this topic, and video of it in action.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52441/post-479346.html#msg479346
 
Ex-Drag....Talk to some NWT's instead....I've gotten a very different story.

NS
 
IS it just me or does anyone else something wrong here.........
If the System gets powered up and opens fire on a rocket coming from the direction of Kandahar, how much ammunition is going to be sent into the air à la "I shot an arrow into the air, where it fell I know not where".

To date, the rocket and mortar attacks on Kandahar have been more of a nuisance than anything else.  Having a cloud of Phalanx ammo sailing towards the city has the potential to hurt a lot of people.
 
So what will happen when WE fire mortar rounds downrange? Mortar rounds dont have any IFF so the Phanlax wouldnt be able to tell whether or not its friendly or not, wouldnt it shoot ours out of the sky too?
 
Radar/computer can tell the difference between incoming and outgoing. ;)

Article.

http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=phalanx+to+counter+mortar+and+rocket+fire&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf&w=phalanx+counter+mortar+rocket+fire&d=AN9LupIFNioF&icp=1&.intl=us
 
geo said:
If the System gets powered up and opens fire on a rocket coming from the direction of Kandahar, how much ammunition is going to be sent into the air à la "I shot an arrow into the air, where it fell I know not where".

I read somewhere else that the Americains use self destructing ammo to "minimize" casualties in Iraq. No word on what a "minimized" casualty figure would be.
 
Hmmm -  see... that`s the problem when you're trying to win the hearts and minds of the people you're there to protect.

We have been getting locals to come in and report suspicious activities - making the attacks less effective.

At present, the mortar and rocket attacks are really, really ineffective - other than keeping people awake at night.  Do we really need the darned thing?
 
Is this not more about the preception of protection of the people on the base, rather than actual denial of rocket/mortar impacts?

The Canadian public gets all twitchy when some columnist starts crying about how insecure they felt on the base when a rocket landed, and suddenly the public thinks and are encouraged by the press that the poor journalists are living in the trenches, shivering in fear because the military isn't protecting them.
 
said journalists can always move north to Kabul or east to Islamabad

cause, you know that they would jump all over us if we started shooting up the town with our indiscriminate firing of weapons
 
So whats the Navy going to do? Start swapping out CIWSs before any major deployment or exercise? Or worse comes to worse be deployed without? As a sailor I think the idea sucks supreme butt and would not feel competent or safe being deployed on a ship without.
 
We won't see this happen..... I would be very surprised if we do.

HEY WHY NOT TAKE THE 76mm off of the Huron!!!

Sounds like another good rumour to be passing around.......


 
Sub_Guy said:
We won't see this happen..... I would be very surprised if we do.

HEY WHY NOT TAKE THE 76mm off of the Huron!!!

Sounds like another good rumour to be passing around.......

LOL I thought it was already removed..... ;)



 
I hear they're leaving it on the Huron...so she gets a chance to shoot back in the sinkex next year.

NS
 
Can't really see this happening.  The mechanics of having to remove it from a ship and then modify it for land use would make it very impractical.  You can't just get out your wrenches and lift it off the ship and plop it on the ground.  It would require a specialized platform, electronics and a power source.  As well, once removed, the ships would have to be modified to fix the area where it had been to make them sea worthy.  We are now talking a lot of $ for something that is really not much more than a nuisance.

If the CF were really considering this idea it would be more cost effective(and probably faster) to order them from the manufacturer where they would already be fitted out for for this type of role.

I know, maybe we could get some and mount them in place of the turret on some of the old Cougars ;D
 
Back
Top