Canada Considering Sending Phalanx to Afghanistan

[Mortar guy]

I assume your last sentence was a question?

The CIWS would (theoretically) shoot down the incoming round. Hence the C-RAM everyone is talking about. The idea wasn't to use the Phalanx for counter-battery work!!

Cheers,

MG

 

[NCRCrow]

So you are going to man the CIWS search radar 24/7 !!

It will have to be manned 24/7 and a decision made by the operator in seconds if it is a threat or friendly organic asset. (UAV/Helo)

No fly zones are oblivious concept to the US.

Plus the heat...........

Hence my TPQ-36 or Land Giraffe as a I & W FP measure.

 

[Mortar guy]

I thought you'd fired this thing "hundreds of times"!? If that's the case you must know that the radar/computer can easily distinguish between a UAV and a rocket! Also, you know that the CIWS can be programmed with "no fire" sectors or zones (i.e. airfield approaches). Finally, everything I have seen shows the land-Phalanx manned by one guy whereas a gun troop plus radar would require over 30 personnel on standby at any one time. I don't really understand your fixation on a radar-only solution as that is passive and, by your own admission, not very effective.

This is all moot anyway. I still don't believe that some doo-hickey will solve the rocket problem.

MG

 

[geo]

Larger issues....
Troops in Ops last week indicated that if one single civilian Afghan fell to Friendly fire / accidental fire, then the operation would be lost.

Thus, strap on your helmet & protective vest, find shelter & "relax"

 

[NCRCrow]

Disagree, about your CIWS search crit.

But its a moot point......

the game is on 3-2 Canada

 

[COBRA-6]

C-RAM is not just phalanx, it is a network of 7 systems, one of which is an intercept capability (phalanx). OPSEC precludes a more detailed explanation, but trying to compare this application to the way the Navy employs is apples and oranges...

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks to Cobra-6.  I was starting to wonder why the deployment of a single fire position Phalanx was being compared to the deployment of a Troop of 35s.

As I understand the Skyguard/Skyshield system a single fire position consists of two Twin-35s, with or without an additional fixed missile launcher or two.  Conceivably, the operators on the fire position could have up to 16 ADATS missiles or some such at their disposal.  As well they have a search radar, a tracking radar and electro-optical sensors.  The "On-Duty" staff at the fire position consists of 2-only personnel.

A Troop would cover a perimeter.  CIWS would still seem to require a number of units to cover a perimeter.  Whether all the systems on the perimeter could be netted together so that one "One-Duty Team" could manage the entire perimeter wouldn't seem impossible.

Some links on Rheinmetall-Oerlikon's Camp Defence concept.
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=3670&lang=3&pdb=1

As well as on Skyshield and Skyguard
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1548&lang=3&pdb=1
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=1552&lang=3&pdb=1

 

[Mortar guy]

C-RAM is not just phalanx, it is a network of 7 systems, one of which is an intercept capability (phalanx). OPSEC precludes a more detailed explanation, but trying to compare this application to the way the Navy employs is apples and oranges...

Big hairy roger on that. I have seen the presentation about all the C-RAM "bits" but for OPSEC reasons have limited myself to discussing that which is more or less in the open. To tell you the truth it's not the CIWS alone that bothers me about the C-RAM proposal put forth in that presentation. It's the use of a varied and large amount of resources to counter a very ineffective Timmie tactic.

MG

 

[Halifax Tar]

I met an Arty guy over the holidays who said that they are sending down some Air Defence Arty boys to take the course in Halifax and deploy with this system in the not so distant future.

 

[NavyShooter]

I don't believe that the "plan" for this system would be to strip the frigates bare....the rumbles I've heard have been to the effect that there will be new purchases rather than borrowing from the Navy, and the numbers I heard include spares for maintenance periods.

NS

 

[Halifax Tar]

Any air defence guys out there reading our thread wanna touch on this ? I think you may be the most "in the know" on this subject.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I heard from an NDHQ guy that the money for a new system (a land based Phalanx system) has already been identified.

 

[eerickso]

I would hope that the Army doesn't invest its money in such a small niche. This is a very passive tactic. You fight a 100 dollar tactic with millions of dollars? What other roles does this system perform, the Army already does air defence? Isn't there any better ideas?

 

[Good2Golf]

Too bad they cancelled MMEV, could have added small calibre/high-rate CB fires in between the ADATS and TOW-3 tubes and the add-on Stinger...  ;D

Seriously, though...I agree with many who have noted that there is a large cost (not only monetarily but training and op maint-wise) to putting such a cap in theatre.

p.s.  MG, didn't you like my support for that weapon system you loved so much!  >

G2G

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would hope that the Army doesn't invest its money in such a small niche. This is a very passive tactic. You fight a 100 dollar tactic with millions of dollars? What other roles does this system perform, the Army already does air defence? Isn't there any better ideas?

Why is gaining another capability such a bad thing? Yeah you spend a little extra compared to what the bad guys are spending but in the long run are you not saving money by possibly preventing deaths and loss of equipment? You might not care if it saves the life of one soldier but I do.

 

[rmacqueen]

I would hope that the Army doesn't invest its money in such a small niche. This is a very passive tactic. You fight a 100 dollar tactic with millions of dollars? What other roles does this system perform, the Army already does air defence? Isn't there any better ideas?

It's not like they would get rid of it once the threat went away.  This would be another tool for future situations as well and, given the ability to program it, useful under many scenario's.  This is the same argument that was used by the Liberals to get rid of the Leopards because there was no longer a threat from the Soviets.  We are now see how shortsighted that was.

 

[geo]

Considering the effectiveness of TB fire into our camp at KAF
no one has, as yet really justified the need for such a beast....

 

[MJP]

Why is gaining another capability such a bad thing? Yeah you spend a little extra compared to what the bad guys are spending but in the long run are you not saving money by possibly preventing deaths and loss of equipment? You might not care if it saves the life of one soldier but I do.

Meh if it can be proven to be very very effective yea then I would add it.  But I rather that the enemy continue to try and waste their efforts on maintaining a course of action that costs them resources and does little to us.  Agrressive patrolling around the airfields cuts down on the number of rocket and mortar attacks and that IMHO is a better option than adding more people in a role that may or may not be proven effective.

 

[Mortar guy]

p.s.  MG, didn't you like my support for that weapon system you loved so much!  >

G2G

Grrrrr  :rage:  :rage:

Meh if it can be proven to be very very effective yea then I would add it.  But I rather that the enemy continue to try and waste their efforts on maintaining a course of action that costs them resources and does little to us.  Agrressive patrolling around the airfields cuts down on the number of rocket and mortar attacks and that IMHO is a better option than adding more people in a role that may or may not be proven effective.

[cheesy Dutch accent] Couldn't have said it better myself [/cheesy Dutch accent]

MG

 

[Stoker]

New development for the Phalanx.


Phalanx Fitted With Laser and Passes Test

Phalanx Fitted With Laser and Passes Test
January 11, 2007: Responding to an Israeli search (and offers of quick sales) for anti-rocket/ mortar systems, the company (Raytheon) that makes the Phalanx anti-ship missile system, has adapted a Phalanx to use a laser instead of a 20mm automatic cannon. The Phalanx radar can spot incoming object at up to 5,000 meters, and destroy them at up to 2,000 meters with its 20mm cannon. But by using an off-the-shelf solid state laser, Raytheon was able to detect and destroy a 60mm mortar shell (which is smaller than any current rocket) at a range of "over 500 meters". The laser used can be powered by a generator, or commercial (off the grid) electrical power. Previous high powered lasers required a chemical energy system that was bulky, messy and expensive. If this modified Phalanx system is reliable, they could be used to protect towns and villages in areas, like southern Israel, where Palestinians fire home made rockets from Gaza. While the 20mm cannon has a longer range, the ammo is more expensive, and the shells will eventually come down in Gaza, where they may hit civilians. Then there's the expense. Even second hand Phalanx systems cost over a million dollars each. New ones can cost ten times that, although the price with the laser, instead of the complex, six barreled 20mm cannon, would be lower (perhaps $6 million each). The laser version would also be lighter, weighing no more than three tons.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20070111.aspx