The CIWS Discussion
- Thread starter drunknsubmrnr
- Start date
The one question I would have to ask would be what todays threats are compared to what they would be in the near and distant future. Also what the actual attacks if any have been made in the recent few years, along with the sucess rates of such equipment being deployed on ships.
Can we be over protected in one area and not enough in another? Haveing a close to medium range capability with the CIWIS and the Deckgun along with a long stand off with the VLS what else do we need at present time.
Can we be over protected in one area and not enough in another? Haveing a close to medium range capability with the CIWIS and the Deckgun along with a long stand off with the VLS what else do we need at present time.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
It would be cool for sure...another factor would be rate of fire and recharge rate for the weapon.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
CTD said:
I would also put that in the billion dollar question category. If you operate in a Task Group then you hope another unit can cover the aspect your lacking in.
A
aesop081
Guest
CTD said:
Oh i guess i will be the one to torpedo this thread and say whats on everyone's mind.........
Carrier-based fighters and AEW aircraft.
There, thus dies this thread.......... Sharks with laser beams attached are a bit more realistic.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Back on topic
Milnet.Ca Staff
Milnet.Ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
Snakedoc said:Well if we need carrier-based fighters, we need the carriers that go along with them too then
We do, they are the CF-188's.
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
Ex-Dragoon said:
What about something along the lines of The Armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS)?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
We use tungsten now.
Is there an advantage to using tungsten APDS rounds as opposed to standard High Explosive, or High Explosive Armour Piercing rounds? Because usually APDS rounds are used against tanks, and so far as I know, missiles do not have armour.
Wouldn't high explosive rounds with proximity fuses be more effective?
Wouldn't high explosive rounds with proximity fuses be more effective?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Rounds made of denser material (tungsten) penetrate better better chance of causing damage.
A
aesop081
Guest
Galahad said:
The idea is to chew up the missile and shred it out of the sky. You dont need HE for that.
Yes, I suppose that does make sense. I would guess that they probably tested this a long time ago and must have found that APDS rounds were more effective.
I was just curious if a wall of flak would be more effective than a wall of tungsten slugs, but I guess for the purposes of shooting down missiles, it isn't.
I was just curious if a wall of flak would be more effective than a wall of tungsten slugs, but I guess for the purposes of shooting down missiles, it isn't.
- Reaction score
- 68
- Points
- 680
Heck you can use ballbearings, just have to get them moving fast enough.
CDN Aviator said:
In that case wouldn't a direct hit with a high explosive round do more damage than a sabot just smashing strait through it?
Or maybe the problem is that missiles are so small that by the time the fuse triggers, the round has already passed through the other side of the missile?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
look at it this way...you may also be destroying the guidance system, or other peripheral electronics onboard the missile that even may cause the missile to break lock on your ship. Don't forget the ship is using a CIWS as a last resort you either get it right the first time with something that is going to hit the missile hard and cause catastrophic damage or hope that a cloud of fragments will cause enough damage.
A
aesop081
Guest
Theres more to avoiding a missile hit that firing the CWIS alone.......
Nuf said.
Nuf said.
Similar threads
