Canada Considering Sending Phalanx to Afghanistan

[NavyShooter]

Canada's national defence depends on having a balanced capability on land/sea/air. The naval component is relatively easily deployable to anywhere in the world (North Korea next?) and provides a defensive capability in national waters. You were obviously not in during the Turbot War if you feel the CCG is the ONLY answer to defence of national interests in Canada's littoral.

And we are waaaaaaayyyy off topic. The Phalanx debate does continue. Part of the discussions are apparently the actually utility of such things in theatre and how they would be supported. Originally it was felt that some army trades could get by with a little extra training on the units (!). Cooler heads have prevailed and it is now realized that (for Canada) use of these in AFG will require a significant naval footprint on the ground for a protracted time.

Also, what does this do to the fighting efficiency of the fleet? How many ships can remain fully deployable (i.e. at high readiness)? Where will the navy require their units next (again the NK thing is one example)?

Turbot War....almost forgot about that one.  It was an interesting time on the Gotta-go when I was out there.  CCG got the credit, but from what I heard, we were ordered not to go into Newf, so the CCG could get the PR boost.

From the open source stuff on the web, it's obvious to me that the US have continued to have a naval presence with their C-RAM's, as some of the quotes in the stories are from "Petty-officer" so-and-so, or Chief so-and-so.....

I'd heard rumors of Cadpat people sitting in on courses at NAD, but for at least a while, the experienced bodies would have to be sailors I think. 

As for dropping a CIWS onto an armoured chassis, well, I don't think that'd go too far, too much bulk to fit easily.  It takes up (from the pics I've seen) the greater part of an 18 wheeler flat-bed.

Oh, and the rumbles I've heard might involve new purchases, instead of borrowing from active units in the fleet.

NS

 

[Kirkhill]

I have suggested in the not to distant past that there might be some synergies between the CIC/NWT types and the Arty/Engr types in the modern expeditionary base.

The Army has got used to thinking of itself as a manoeuvre force over the years.  The notion of establishing an immobile, permanent garrison that can't move away from a threat but needs to defend itself in place against all comers is a relatively new and developing concept.  Defensive positions have generally been seen as temporary and are manned by the available personnel and equipment pending their move to a new location.

The Navy, by contrast, while being able to manoeuvre in a limited fashion has always had to confront the fact that many of the threats opposing it can manoeuvre faster against it than it can evade them.  Ultimately the navy has to stand and trade shot for shot.  This was true for Nelson's navy.  It is still true.  What has changed though is that, because of the floating garrison nature of a ship, the Navy has been able to adopt more technological solutions to replace manpower.  CIWS is one example.  The CIC is the best example.

The Army is struggling for manpower but much of its manpower is employed in force protection and support.  The Navy has learned how to accomplish some of these tasks with out bodies.  Perhaps there is something that the Navy can teach the Army about the engineering, manning and maintaining of a defensive suite for a fixed garrison.  A Garrison CIC with wired in sensors, Remote Weapons Systems, Wireless Claymores, Metallic Storm type preloaded grenade launchers etc, CIWS perhaps, would provide an interesting defensive spine not just for a BMA but even for FOBs and Villages.  That would free up the Army as a manoeuver force to go wandering the spaces between the garrisons and acting as reaction forces to reinforce threatened garrisons or to act against concentrations fo enemy forces.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Intresting thoughts Kirkhill.

How well could a CIWS designate in a high air traffic area ? What ther chances is becomes confused and shoots down a transport full of troops ? These would be my big worry because KAF is anything but quiet when it comes to air traffic.

As for set up so 4 set at the corners would be sufficiant you think ? I guess making is acutally mobile would be too cumbersome.

 

[Roadracer]

Now we're talking!

Navy Shooter, you remember correctly. I believe it was consider far to politically sensitive for a Navy ship to be seen escorting the offending fishing boat into Newfie John. Remember that there was a Spanish frigate sent to the scene. Any more 'provocation' from Canada was considered a bad idea.

Specifically on topic, the CIWS wouldn't be particularly mobile. The cooling problems for the unit are guite large. I've seen ships rig fire hoses to get the water up there to circulate. I will assume that part of the rig on the truck is a large water tank? Or a pump?

Part of the upgrade required for 'CIWS on a truck' is software. And we haven't shot down any helos with the things yet, so SOPs are working well to ensure only 'bandits' get designated. And that leads to Kirkhill's thoughts of an "OPS Room" controling the base's self defence capability. Think of it as a ship that doesn't move and all kinds of ideas leap to mind!

 

[Halifax Tar]

intresting... Could it really lock onto a small rocket or projectile like an RPG or Katushka rocket? What about a mortor bomb ?

That would be very very impressive...

 

[Petard]

intresting... Could it really lock onto a small rocket or projectile like an RPG or Katushka rocket? What about a mortar bomb ?

That would be very very impressive...

CIWS against an RPG, probably not, but this might...
http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/researchtech/afvt/das_e.asp

BTW the CIWS, as the US is developing it, is only one part of a much larger system that makes C-RAM, one that also includes the manoeuvre force assets.

for Tar, how about throwing the spell check on your messages hunh? You're starting to read like you got into the x-mas grog already

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Pssst it was an OPV (fitted with Harpoons) that the Spanish sent over. They too had no interest in escalating things unless we ratched the tension level higher.

 

[Roadracer]

Possible advertized CIWS targets:

" ...  standard and guided artillery; .... " and
"these adapted weapons could also provide defensive options against the kinds of rocket attacks encountered in Round 1 of Israel's recent war with Hezbollah, Iran & Syria...." 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/09/phalanx-ciws-the-last-defense-on-ship-and-ashore/index.php


(Ex-Dragoon, I apologize, I couldn't remember exactly what the Spainish sent over. I do remember a couple of years afterward when COMSTANAVFORLANT staff was embarked on the ship I was on. One NATO staff officer was from Spain, he was VERY nervous about coming over!    )

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I remember some of us were nervous about going into Valencia just a couple of years after the Turbot War....for the most part we were kindly recieved.

 

[Neill McKay]

Turbot War....almost forgot about that one.  It was an interesting time on the Gotta-go when I was out there.  CCG got the credit, but from what I heard, we were ordered not to go into Newf, so the CCG could get the PR boost.

CCG, or DFO?  I thought the fisheries protection fleet was still separate at that time.

 

[aesop081]

This is the ship Spain sent to the Turbot wars........

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/BuquesUnidades/ListaOficialBuques/13Patrulleros/13_02_serviola.asp?foto=foto4G.jpg&pie=Foto++Serviola

The Serviola

 

[NavyShooter]

I recall working with my boss to try and figure out if we could launch ASROC back at them if things got stressful...the question of fitted for, or fitted with Harpoon was on a lot of minds.

As for the C-RAM able to engage Mortar rounds.....

On 16 December 2004, TARDEC’s Active Defense Systems team conducted test simulation activities. The first activity involved a live interceptor being loaded while waiting for a live mortar to fall within engagement range. This was followed by Mortar Tracking System(MTS) RADAR providing IAAPS a cue. The system then tracked the mortar, computed a fire control solution, fired, updated the fuse timing in flight, and the interceptor appeared to engage the mortar "nose to nose" at the prescribed standoff in front of the mortar.

High-speed video showed that the mortar was knocked askew, went into a flat fall, and appeared to damage at least one fin. It then continued to fall sideways, but eventually seemed to right itself, and struck the earth at a slight angle, exploding upon hitting the ground. Upon recovery and inspection of the mortar, only the tail section was found. Multiple fragment hits were evident on the fins, one fin was clearly severed by an interceptor fragment, and another showed clear fragment impact.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/cram.htm  (Open source link)

Obviously, incoming mortar rounds can be engaged and damaged.

NS

 

[eerickso]

Instead of hitting the motar/artillery rounds, how about sending some fire to the point of origin. The 57 or 76 mm could easily do this ???

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Instead of hitting the motar/artillery rounds, how about sending some fire to the point of origin. The 57 or 76 mm could easily do this ???

And let the incoming shells kill personnel and damage materiel? What if you don't know where the shells are coming from? What of the chances of unacceptable civillian casualties and collateral damage? have you considered any of this? Do you know anything about the 57mm and the 76mm to state they can be used in counter battery fire?

 

[Old Sweat]

If we can calculate the trajectory to give us a high probabilty of destroying an incoming round, then we also can determine the point from where the projectile was fired. We used to do it in the 1960's with the AN/MPQ 501 counter-mortar radar and its technology was stone age compared to today's. It has a double beam and we used to mark the points on the scope where the bomb appeared on the scope with grease pencil, line up the points with a cursor and engage an analog computer. Retaliation is technically possible, but as noted there are larger issues.

 

[Trinity]

Retaliation is technically possible, but as noted there are larger issues.

Easy enough to launch a mortar round on or beside a school and leave immediately.  I wouldn't want to
be the one to retaliate with the poor civilians taking the brunt of it.

We have enough examples of that with the IDF and Hamas.

 

[Donut]

Lets not forget the IRA, and their roofless vans.  Drive into location, fire, and drive away.  Or, timer the things, and just abandon them. 

DF

 

[eerickso]

56 and 76 need an FCS, I would sugguest:
http://www.one35th.com/attc/arthur_main.htm

Retaliation is technically possible, but as noted there are larger issues.

Solution to the larger issues: the system should have one red button that requires a human being to press.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

56 and 76 need an FCS, I would sugguest:
http://www.one35th.com/attc/arthur_main.htm
Solution to the larger issues: the system should have one red button that requires a human being to press.

Still waiting for your response....but I will bring up some other points. What use would the 57mm and the 76mm be in a ground role? Why even bother? To engage the bad guys the ground pounders have their own mortars, 25mm on the LAV3 and Coyotes, 105mm on the Leopards and not to mention the M777 155mm.

 

[rmacqueen]

The problem, IMHO, is that all these solutions are for traditional counter-battery fire.  The problem with what the Taliban are doing is they are firing and taking off so by the time you have a solution for counter fire they are gone.  And, as pointed out earlier, they also like to use innocent civilians as shields.  On a political level, one mistake could cause irreparable harm to the CF.