Talk:Phalanx CIWS

Rate of fire

Ok, so they fire 4500 rounds per minute, but they only hold 1500 rounds in their clip, that means they can only fire for less than half a second before having to "reload"? Or do they have some kind of ammo hold that automatically feeds into the gun? --Rain 22:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that would be 20 seconds worth of fire. If you look at the Goalkeeper CIWS page, there is more helpful information. It probably takes only a few seconds of fire to destroy the target. Noisy | Talk 23:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. As a former CIWS tech it normally takes approx 200-300 rounds to destroy an imbound projectile. In the wiki entry I edited the fire rate and Radar Information. Hydraulic CIWS systems can only fire 3000 rounds a minute. The newer Pneumatic 1A and 1B systems can only fire 4500 rounds a min. The fire rate for the newer systems is not able to be changed.

There is not a Search and Track Radar System. There is only one Radar System which has a Search and Track Antenna. The system utilizes only one of the antennas at a time due to there only being one transmitter in the system. And please don't refernce the Track antenna as "Orange Peel" that is inaccurate. It is an Inverted Truncated Parrabaloid antenna. The Search is a 4 Beam phased array antenna for the newer systems.

Tick mark on photo

The ciws on the Missouri has a broken missle tick on it. Did it shoot down one of the two Iraqi silkworms fired in it's vacinity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.65.168 (talk • contribs) November 4, 2005.

Perhaps it got partial credit for the kill?

This is a a very amazing and useful weapon, but it _does_ have the dubious distinction of being one of the few systems that has killed more users than it has saved, as a number of maintenance personell have been crushed while working on an unsecured weapon. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Hazel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.75.23 (talk • contribs) June 9, 2006.

Killed more users? I'd like to see the source for that statement. --Dual Freq 22:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The tick mark is probably the result of a successful test firing against a towed target. Royhandy 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Tick marks are sometimes made by the crew after a Succesfully Towed missile engament. And no one has ever been crushed by the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly fire incident

Though I'm not specifically familiar with this incident, it seems unlikely that Phalanx would fire at a deployed Chaff cloud. Chaff is launched from what is basically a rocket launcher. This projectile, containing chaff, must be propelled away from the ship where it explodes hopefully luring the missile away. It seems that from this source the CIWS fired at the rocket after it launched and before the chaff deployed. A 5 inch rocket heading toward the Jarrett at that range would seem to be worth shooting at. Yes, it's friendly fire, but it seems like Phalanx was only doing what it was supposed to do. Without seeing an official report, perhaps the weapon fired at the rocket until it either no longer met engagement criteria (wasn't a threat to the Jarrett), or until the rocket deployed its chaff with some of the Phalanx rounds following a ballistic trajectory and hitting the Missouri. The way the article and its source are worded, it implies that CIWS malfunctioned, and fired at the [deployed] Chaff. I'd say it did what it was supposed to, but it resulted in an unintended consequence. --Dual Freq 22:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some misunderstandings that happened during this incident. It was an older system with less advanced computing and radar as the newer system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Last line of defense"

This phrase is used an awful lot in this article. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit to be less repetitive? Viper007Bond 10:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

SeaRAM

Should there be a mention of SeaRAM in this article? The system is made using a Phalanx frame, radar and other components, and I believe it is Navy policy that it will replace the gun-based CIWS in most applications. --Warphammer 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuke the fiction section?

The CIWS has no major fictional appearances. The section is an IMDB listing of its nominal appearances in films. I say let's delete the whole thing as non-notable. --Mmx1 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of fiction sections in general. The one on this page is very large and basically useless. I've dealt with these sections before, they are hard to get rid of because everyone wants to add their favorite Anime feature, model airplane, GI Joe toy or some such thing to the list. The R2D2 thing in the lead paragraph bothers me a bit too. I bet the only ones who call it R2D2 are mess cooks or non-navy folks who have no idea what it really is. I never heard it called R2D2, but that's only my informed opinion. I'd say if it has a real nick name it would be CWIS, pronounced sea-whiz. Dual Freq 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was tangentially involved in the turnup at Balad and we *always* called it "C-RAM" ("seeram"). I was civvie so when I say "we" I mean myself and every uniform associated with the project. I'd call it "R2D2 with a chubby" to people who hadn't heard that term, but it was just for a few laughs and then right back to "C-RAM".Geeyore (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's frequently referred to not as "R2D2" but "R2D2 with a hard-on" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.222.108 (talk • contribs) .

Yep, operations and supply department might call it that, but not Combat systems and not the Firecontrolman who maintain the system. Dual Freq 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuked the fiction; not sure about R2D2. No experience in the Navy, but I have heard it often on the civilian side. May just be an apocryphal story. --Mmx1 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember it being frequently called that, while in I was in the Navy, but I never served on a ship with the system. I agree that R2D2 should not appear in the first paragraph. It may hve been called that to point it out easily from a distance, the white and the shape would stick out a lot (espeically on the battleships), and a quick reference rather than describing the shape. Plus that was a good quick reference when they started appearing on the ships in the early 1980's. --Wfoj2 23:00 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the R2D2 name may have been more common early on. My dad was in the USN during the time of their introduction and that usage was fairly common when they were first appearing, with "Sea-Whiz" being more common by the 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.117 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

CIWS

Isn't this a very maintenance intensive system? (and other similiar systems) Any verifiable source on this. --Wfoj2 23:00 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes very, very maintenance intensive. Approx 200-300 maintenance checks performed in a quarter, ranging from daily operational checks to Gun and Ammo handling system tear down and rebuilds performed quartley and semiannualy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Currently fitted to Royal Navy ships according to Janes: eight Type 42s, the auxiliary oiler-replenishment vessels RFA Fort Victoria and RFA Fort George, the landing platform helicopter HMS Ocean and the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. 81.86.144.210 07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The RN usually says, more specifically than this article, that the Sea Dart missile actually hit the iraqi silkworm and is the only combat engagement where this occured.

CIWS

Although an accurate and well researched entry, i would like to point out two errors within the entry.Firstly, CIWS does not aim to destroy an incoming target by exploding the warhead. CIWS cant distinguish different parts of a target, it only sees targets as a blob.As a former CIWS technician, and someone who has visited Loiuseville (home of CIWS)and spoken to the technicians, I can say with certainty that CIWS aims to destroy a targets aerodynamics first. An incoming target doing many times the speed of sound has only to be hit once or twice to send that target into the sea, or wildly off course. If a round hits the warhead and the missile explodes, all the better, but this is not the intent. Secondly, CIWS no longer uses depleted uranium projectiles (and hasnt for 10 years). Todays antiship missiles are generally not armoured, and any aircraft that are armoured will never be within CIWS range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matilda100 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point about how CIWS aims to destroy a target. however the Navy still does use some Depleted Uranium primarily for training however it is still loaded aboard ships until its "depleted" from stock.

I can say from first had experience from many TOW exercises that CIWS turns missiles into swiss cheese and in all actuallity a knocked off guidance fin is the goal for knocking the missile out of the sky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dalek?

The R2D2 name is an American nickname, but the British navy has their own nickname, Daleks, after the robots from Doctor Who. Since it is an english name, it hasn't really caught on in the US, But I think is should have a brief mention alonside the R2D2 info. --Simpsons fan 66 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for this, as there was for the American name? Additionally, the parenthasied reference should be formatted similarly, rather than simply copying the first line of the linked article. Nottheking (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest some video footage, this one is quite good as a demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILcVt9p7cug Weirdo10o4 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Range specification

It says in the spec sheet that the 100% kill distance is '8 miles (10 km)'. First of all, 8 miles =/= 10 kilometres. Second, I highly doubt that the Vulcan cannon is even slightly effective at 8 miles. I suspect that the maximum target identification range (~15 kilometres[?]) and the effective engagement range (~2,5 kilometres) have been mixed up.