Canada Considering Sending Phalanx to Afghanistan

[Kirkhill]

The Army has another potential solution on hand.  They don't need to put the CIWS into the field as a C-RAM system and deny their use to the Navy.  Nor do they need Navy personnel to show them how to operate unfamiliar gear.

The Army operated/operates the ADATS system in conjunction with the Skyguard Radar and the Twin 35mm GDF-005.  Rheinmetall-Oerlikon-Contraves is marketing their current generation of the system, the Skyshield, as a C-RAM system capable of countering Mortar Bombs and Rockets.  The Skyguard could and the GDF-005s could both be upgraded (and the GDFs equipped with AHEAD ammunition) to function as a Skyshield system.

Even the ADATS missiles could be incorporated in static missile launchers that could be integrated into the system.

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1547&lang=3&pdb=1

 

[Old Sweat]

A technical assessment during the Gulf War indicated ADATS could be used to shoot down incoming projectiles, but I am not aware of the state of development, if any, of this capability. We have, however, come a long way since then.

As for retaliating against a mortar baseplate or rocket launching position, the limiting factor is the time required to get rounds on the target. If our locating device is pointed in the right direction, the location of the firing point will be known almost as soon as the weapon is fired. The delay includes the human decision making cycle, the time to lay and fire the gun and one that all the wizardry in the world can't alter, the time of flight of the rounds.

One thing none of us have discussed is the limitations of the enemy weapons and particularly range. For example, say we have a base that covers an area one km by one km and the enemy is using a mortar with a range of five km. If he wishes to land a round in the centre of the target, then he must set up within 4500 metres of the perimeter. Now he is not likely to deploy within eyeshot of our position, so he is limited to a band around our base of say 3500 metres deep. Not all the ground will be suitable, and we may be able to identify the best locations for him to use and cover these with sensors and/or patrols. Now our approach is apt to be different depending if we are in a built-up area with lots of civilians living in that belt as opposed to being out in the boondocks.

I guess what I am trying to say is that dealing with the threat is complex, but not hopeless.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The Army has another potential solution on hand.  They don't need to put the CIWS into the field as a C-RAM system and deny their use to the Navy.  Nor do they need Navy personnel to show them how to operate unfamiliar gear.

The Army operated/operates the ADATS system in conjunction with the Skyguard Radar and the Twin 35mm GDF-005.  Rheinmetall-Oerlikon-Contraves is marketing their current generation of the system, the Skyshield, as a C-RAM system capable of countering Mortar Bombs and Rockets.  The Skyguard could and the GDF-005s could both be upgraded (and the GDFs equipped with AHEAD ammunition) to function as a Skyshield system.

Even the ADATS missiles could be incorporated in static missile launchers that could be integrated into the system.

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1547&lang=3&pdb=1

Agreed they do not need to put sailors in the field to operate these systems however, right now the navy are the ones that concentrate a lot of time and resources on engaging missiles and shells. Are you sure you want to dismiss that expertise so lightly?

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed they do not need to put sailors in the field to operate these systems however, right now the navy are the ones that concentrate a lot of time and resources on engaging missiles and shells. Are you sure you want to dismiss that expertise so lightly?

Absolutely NOT.  My comments were not intended as derogatory at all.  I am sure the naval personnel and their skills would be more than welcome, with their existing tool box.  Although I did understand you to say that the current systems were needed for existing naval operations and that the vessels are short-handed. 

All I was saying was that if you are not available there are other options open.  On the other hand if you are available, as I said, I can't help but think you and your skills would be welcome.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[eerickso]

As a formal naval officer, I do not envy the task of the Army in Afghanistan.
While there is always safety considerations when releasing naval weapons, I believe the problem is generally simpler in the Navy.

I can not guarantee that such a weapon system would not kill any civilians. I cannot discuss the engineering challenges of such a system because I do not know them, however, I could give you the attributes of a naval gun using the sea giraffe(air search radar) and stir(high power tracker).

Disadvantages:

It would be very large. (Large naval gun system, radars and power generation)
It would have no armor protection. (The navy doesn't do this anymore)
It would have limited deployability in the army. (Transporting a large naval gun system by air and land )
It would not be mobile.

Advantages:
It would quickly detect/track incoming projectiles and calculate solution.
It would quickly send rounds down range and at a very high rate of fire.
It would be a very automated system. (Need a few Radar Techs and some Naval Weapon Techs to maintain the system)
It could quickly assess if it is going to fire into a mosque or school instead of a farmer’s field.

After reading the article about CWIS, it sounds like they are using the system to protect civilians in the blue zone. In Afghanistan, do they have this problem also? If not, locating bases to positons were counter battery missions can be conducted without any concern for non-combatants is an easy solution.

 

[NCRCrow]

This is not going to happen. End the thread

 

[Old Sweat]

For whatever it is worth, the army has been far less technical in its approach to operational challenges than was the navy. A jillion years ago, when I  was a junior captain in the artillery school in Shilo I was asked if I thought that computer technology could improve the artillery's counter bombardment capability. From what was described to me, and given the state of the art, I deduced - incorectly - that this was a data managment challenge. It was not until many years later that I realized from unclassified sources that the navy was light years ahead of us in applying technology for identifying, tracking and destroying a target from all the background clutter that existed in a maritime environment.

 

[NCRCrow]

The dust would kill it ! But it would be an awesome deterrent at a road block or checkpoint

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf

How many people commenting on this thread have fired the CIWS (Phalanx)?

Old Sweat:
The Canadian Navy is the best in the world for its use of sensors (including HELO/MPA) to detect/classify and determine a threat and engage it with a kick ass Standard/Sparrow/ or Harpoon. We are the best gunners and EW's and the masters of link.

WE ARE THE BEST!!!!

 

[rmacqueen]

The dust would kill it !

How many people commenting on this thread have fired the CIWS (Phalanx)?

Have you?  You are out of your lane on this one.  The discussion is whether Canada will send them not whether it is feasible.  The fact that a land version already exists was pointed out earlier.

Yes...except they've already done it, and someone already posted the shiny brochure to prove it!

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_055720.pdf

Or if pretty pictures are more your style, try this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4897647549985392214&hl=en

 

[FireMission]

Too bad the twin 35mm and Skyguards are not being considered to be deployed.  A troop of 8 guns and 4 Skygd Mk IIs could provide oustanding coverage, with the CIWS potentially filling in the Gaps.

The Twin 35s also use HEITP and have a range of 4Km, vice the 2KM.  The Mk II Skyguards have an excellent sensor surveillance system as well,

I was the last Tp Comd of 129 Bty, 4 AD Regt, Lahr Germany, so I do know of what I speak.  Unfortunately, they are all parked now.  A real shame.  Not the perfect system - but then any time you have an 80% solution is a good day. 

 

[NCRCrow]

"You are out of your lane on this one" LOL ! Is this lane thing a new buzz word or saying!

Have you fired it , I have hundreds of times.

Have you been to Afghanistan, I have.

Should Canada send a Phalanx's to the ghan. Not a naval version.

This is a open forum , so this "lane" thing does not really apply here does it?

 

[rmacqueen]

Have you fired it , I have hundreds of times.

Have you been to Afghanistan, I have.

Congrats.  Doesn't change the fact that they have already developed a ground based version so obviously, the dust won't kill it.

 

[284_226]

Congrats.  Doesn't change the fact that they have already developed a ground based version so obviously, the dust won't kill it.

In all fairness, HFXCrow is probably right.  The fact that a ground-based variant exists doesn't speak to its reliability - at least not yet, anyways.

In my years aboard CPFs, if I had a nickel for every time I emptied a "watertight" SHINCOM enclosure of salt water, only to find a salt-encrusted circuit board that had caused it to fail, I'd be a very rich man.

I'm not a gunbuster, but given the amount of preventive maintenance required to keep salt out of the CIWS, I can't imagine sand and dust being all that friendly to something that fires 300 rounds in the blink of an eye.  The land-based variant would be very maintenance intensive, and suffer a high failure rate once it had been in the environment for a while.

 

[Kirkhill]

Too bad the twin 35mm and Skyguards are not being considered to be deployed.  A troop of 8 guns and 4 Skygd Mk IIs could provide oustanding coverage, with the CIWS potentially filling in the Gaps.

The Twin 35s also use HEITP and have a range of 4Km, vice the 2KM.  The Mk II Skyguards have an excellent sensor surveillance system as well,

I was the last Tp Comd of 129 Bty, 4 AD Regt, Lahr Germany, so I do know of what I speak.  Unfortunately, they are all parked now.  A real shame.  Not the perfect system - but then any time you have an 80% solution is a good day.   

Firemission - I noticed that Oerlikon is flogging an upgrade package to take the GDF-005s up to 008 AHEAD and the Skyguard up to Skyshield and C-RAM capacity.  The fixed launchers for the ADATS - might that make a better solution as a deployable system than the MMEV concept?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

How many people would be in that AD Troop and how would it be sustained?  Just how effective would the 35mms be against mortar shells?  Would it really be 80%?

 

[Mortar guy]

Red_Five speaks wise words.

This seems like an expensive technological solution to a problem that may be defeated by other means. I'm not saying we shouldn't protect our bases/FOBs from mortar attack but rather I'm saying there might be a better way.

Besides, how much damage have rockets/mortars relly done? We can't eliminate all threats and we should think long and hard before spending (potentially) hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce (not eliminate) one of the least effective Taliban tactics.

Let Timmie think it's worthwhile! If we reduce this threat they may just resort to more effective attacks (like dogs with bees in their mouths that shoot bees at you when they bark).  ;D

MG

 

[vonGarvin]

Let Timmie think it's worthwhile! If we reduce this threat they may just resort to more effective attacks (like dogs with bees in their mouths that shoot bees at you when they bark).  ;D

MG

:rofl:

 

[NCRCrow]

The best answer is having a counter battery fire radar for Force Protection. This could be accomplished with a TPQ-36 or 37.

Camp Julien tried the ARTHUR radar but it was not meant for the Afghanistan environment.


Trinity has blessed me !

 

[Mortar guy]

The best answer is having a counter battery fire radar for Force Protection. This could be accomplished with a TPQ-36 or 37.

Camp Julien tried the ARTHUR radar but it was not meant for the Afghanistan environment.

Why is that the "best answer"? All counter battery radar tells you is that you're being shot at and even then the TPQ-36 isn't perfect. CBR tied to artillery that can shoot back is an option, but, as many people have mentioned, far from the best solution. Just to summarize, here are the problems:

1) Opponents will place their mortars/rockets in built-up areas making counterfire unacceptable from a ROE point of view.
2) Opponents will fire rockets on timers so you'll be shooting back at nothing.
3) You need to man both the radars and guns 24/7 and both have to be pointing the right direction. Neither radar nor guns have 360 degree arcs although this can be mitigated. Also, are you going to keep a troops' worth of guns in KAF, manned day and night, to counter an ineffective Timmie tactic?

Also, ARTHUR wasn't a complete waste of space. Whoever drafted our lease contract was, as the big limiter with that system was the number of hours per day we could have it "on". The problem with false returns had more to do with experience IIRC.

Cheers,

MG

 

[NCRCrow]

it was inexperienced operators....

Yes, you are being shot at, "STAND TO"

Whats the CIWS going to do at 2000 yds MER.