The Army wants to draft R2-D2.....

[Drizzt]

Army eyes Raytheon's high-tech, seagoing Gatling gun

By David Wichner
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
The U.S. Army is looking at a Raytheon-made ship-defense system to shoot down mortar rounds that are fired at U.S. troops in Iraq.

The Army is studying Raytheon's Phalanx B1 Close-In Weapon System - a radar-guided, ship-mounted version of a multibarreled Gatling gun - among several technologies to counter mortar and small-rocket threats, the company and the Army said.

The program is called C-RAM, short for "counter rocket artillery mortar" system.

The Phalanx is made by Tucson-based Raytheon Missile Systems in Louisville, Ky.

The Army has received two of the latest Phalanx B1 systems for evaluation under a Navy contract signed in March, said John Eagles, spokesman for Raytheon Missile Systems in Louisville, which employs about 350.

A "last line of defense" for ships, the Phalanx is a rapid-fire, computer-controlled radar and 20-millimeter gun system that can automatically track and destroy close-range enemy threats such as low-flying cruise missiles, small boats and helicopters. Since 1979, more than 850 Phalanx systems have been built and deployed in the navies of 22 allied nations, Raytheon says.

Firing 3,000 to 4,500 armor-piercing rounds per minute, the Phalanx was battle-tested by the British during the Falklands War. The advanced Phalanx 1B version includes advanced Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and beefier gun barrels.

"The capability is there; the capability has been proven," Eagles said.

"The Army knows that the second-most-lethal threat they've got over there is mortars," he said, citing improvised bombs as the top threat.

Mortars are short-barreled, portable artillery weapons used to lob shells at targets within a few miles. They can be set up, fired and packed up in a matter of minutes, making it difficult for defenders to target mortar teams.

Harvey Perritt, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., confirmed that the Army is researching ways to counter the mortar threat and that Raytheon is one of the contractors involved.

Perritt declined to give any further details of the project.

A military analyst said the Army is considering the Phalanx along with other countermeasures, including adapted anti-aircraft guns and rockets that detonate in the path of incoming projectiles, spewing out a pattern of shrapnel to increase the likelihood of a hit.

"The (insurgent) mortar teams are a problem, and they are looking at a number of different approaches to the problem," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org.

"The enemy mortar teams know the U.S. snipers can't get out more than a mile or so" to shoot them, Pike added.

Pike said the Phalanx is a well-regarded ship-defense weapon, though it's seen little combat action with the U.S. Navy.

One possible drawback of using the Phalanx system, Pike said, is the danger its rapid-fire hail of projectiles poses to U.S. troops and civilians.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., is seeking to earmark $75 million in fiscal 2006 funding to develop and field a C-RAM system, said Joe Kasper, Hunter's press secretary.

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/allheadlines/75851.php

 

[SnWnMe]

The CIWS (see-wiz) is the one shipboard weapon that I don't EVER want to see being used.

 

[Alex45ACP]

I need one for home defense

 

[CZ-100]

I need one for home defense

And anyone that can afford it should have one...

 

[shermacman]

Is that a fully automatic revolver?!?!?!

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Firing 3,000 to 4,500 armor-piercing rounds per minute

Why the low cyclical rate of fire? My standard is 8,000 rpm for armor piercing, 16,500 for depleted uranium.

Does it come with a queen size bed?

 

[roscoe]

One possible drawback of using the Phalanx system, Pike said, is the danger its rapid-fire hail of projectiles poses to U.S. troops and civilians.

Ummm - yeah.

 

[Bigjake]

well if you are using it to whack mortar and small rocket fire, use small bullets. wonder if a .22 version would be worth anything? if nothing else they could always use .223 poodle shooter, works on woodchucks.

 

[Cosmoline]

Typical idiotic waste of money. This proposal is like trying to shoot the bad guy's bullet instead of just killing the bad guy. It would be far less expensive and far more effective to simply set up a tracking system to show, in real time, the source of the incoming shells. Our own howitzers and aircraft can then turn the spot into dust.

 

[RevDisk]

Typical idiotic waste of money. This proposal is like trying to shoot the bad guy's bullet instead of just killing the bad guy. It would be far less expensive and far more effective to simply set up a tracking system to show, in real time, the source of the incoming shells. Our own howitzers and aircraft can then turn the spot into dust.

A large number of our artillery people are being turned into MP's. Field Artillery is being "downsized".

:banghead:

 

[Preacherman]

Cosmo, there are already many systems that track back the trajectory of mortar and artillery shells to reveal the location of the firing point. They're in service with the US army, and with many others - heck, they've been around since the 1950's in their earliest incarnations! The idea with the counter-round system is to nail the thing before it impacts, thereby saving damage and casualties it would otherwise cause. This is a new element, which hasn't been possible until now.

I think that anything relying on conventional firearms to intercept (say) an artillery projectile will be "iffy", as the high velocity of these shells makes them very difficult to hit. A slower-moving mortar shell might be "do-able", though. I think that a truly effective system will have to wait until we get a field-deployable laser or particle-beam system (which is not that far off - next ten to twenty years, I should think). Since that's a light-speed system, it would make intercepting high-speed rounds much more practical.

 

[Farnham]

Preacherman is once again correct, the FireFinder system has been in use for years, and there are several newer/faster/better systems in use in Iraq right now that can trace indirect fire back to a POO (Point of Origin) within seconds of it being fired. The problem is that the POO is usually an alley right behind a mosque, or a market, or a school, so we can't shoot back. Another problem is 107mm rockets, they can be fired from out of 82mm mortar range...

I've been on ships (Peleliu and Boxer, LHA and LHD) when the CIWS was tested, and it sounds like the end of the world if you're anywhere near the skin of the ship. Mucho cool, but I don't think flinging 20mm slugs at 3500 RPM out over populated areas, or in the direction of coalition forces is gonna win us many friends.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of Patriot...

S/F

Farnham

 

[Third_Rail]

Myself, being the sick person I am, would love to see/hear this kind of system being fired. I'd want to be well back, but not too far. Maybe 25-50 yards away, behind it.

That'd be neat.

 

[RevDisk]

Myself, being the sick person I am, would love to see/hear this kind of system being fired. I'd want to be well back, but not too far. Maybe 25-50 yards away, behind it.

Personally, I'd prefer to be much farther away. I was hundreds of meters away from an A-10 when it went on a gun run, and it sounded like the end of the world. I have ZERO wish to get any closer than that, as I don't want to go deaf.

 

[OEF_VET]

Typical idiotic waste of money. This proposal is like trying to shoot the bad guy's bullet instead of just killing the bad guy. It would be far less expensive and far more effective to simply set up a tracking system to show, in real time, the source of the incoming shells. Our own howitzers and aircraft can then turn the spot into dust.

Unfortunately, there are several major drawbacks to the theory of artillery/mortar counter-battery fire. One of these problems is the fact that a mortar is an easy system to assemble, lob 4-5 rounds downrange, and then pack up within seconds. Within those few seconds, the Q-36 or Q-37 Firefinder radar would have to acquire the round, track the tracectory, plot the back azimuth, and send the data to the Artillery Fire Direction Center. There, the computer has to plot the firing data and relay it to the guns. Once the guns have the data, the section chief has to travese the gun, fuze the round, double check the firing data, load the round, triple check the data, get approval from higher HQ to fire, and then fire the round. Granted, the AFATDS (Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System) has greatly sped up the process, but it still takes a few minutes. While all that happens, the mortarman leaves his firing point and a couple innocent kids come outside to play soccer in the street. So, if the artillery does fire a counter-battery mission, they'll end up killing innocent civilians instead of the guy who did the shooting.

That, my friend, is an idiotic waste of innocent people, artillery rounds, and of the diplomatic efforts we've made thus far.

Another problem with counter-battery radars is their frequent "false acquisitions". When we (3rd Bde, 101st ABN) first deployed our Q-36 to Kandahar, it had several false acquisitions which made the chain-of-command VERY distrustful of its' ability to function properly. As it turned out, the radar was picking up vehicle traffic on a hardball road to the north of the airfield. Again, if we'd have fired some rounds at that "target", we'd have killed innocent folks, driving home from a day looking for work.

Artillery/mortar counter-battery fire is great during major combat operations, but not during the follow-on peacemaking/peacekeeping operations.

Frank

 

[Navy joe]

We just need to infiltrate a cache or two and leave some 82mm and RPG rounds with "special" fuzes laying about. They'll run out of tubes and gunners in no time.

 

[Cosmoline]

Hitting a bullet with a bullet is among the most difficult and complicated tasks imaginable. If we're having trouble finding the source of the shell within several minutes, I have NO faith the DOD geeks would be able to knock shells out of the air like Superman. The cost is likely to be through the roof, and the money could be much better spent making the bases and transportation systems safer. Not to mention giving us a better old-fashioned intelligence network on the ground. So maybe we can start killing the apes at their homes instead of trying to hit them when they're hiding behind a mosque. The US military always likes to go for the wiz-bang approach instead of greasing palms and getting eyes on the street. It's one reason we got surprised by 9/11, and one reason we keep getting ambushed in Iraq. As "dirty" as old-fashioned intelligence work is, we need to get in there and start paying people to listen in and slit throats. It's a shame the Brits aren't working up in the triangle, as they have always been much better at this sort of thing than we are.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Hitting a bullet with a bullet is among the most difficult and complicated tasks imaginable.

No, it's just sensors, a swift feedback cycle, and an intelligent application of well understood math.

For years, we've been using a system that adjusts artillery fire based on radartracks of the first round downrange, for example.

At machine speeds, we can "see" the incomming, plot a reasonable intercept, execute and adjust before any human knows what's going on.

My guess is that the system has built into it various levels of user intervention, ranging from "OFF" to "Mother, may I shoot THIS?" to "Fully automatic, why did the guns just start shooting?".

My understanding is that CIWS has been known to shoot at drone tow cables, chewing them up towards the tow plane, after having dispatched the drone being towed

 

[Preacherman]

Cosmo, the idea with such systems isn't to shoot directly at the target, but rather to predict its trajectory with sufficient precision that one can be reasonably sure that the target will pass through a given "box" in space (perhaps 2 or 3 yards on a side) at a range that will allow you to reach it. That "box" is then filled with as many flying bits of metal as you can put there, in the reasonably confident expectation that some of them will connect. This is exactly what the Phalanx system does, and why its rate of fire is so high - it's filling the "box" as quickly as possible, with as many projectiles as possible. It's not designed or intended to place all of those projectiles at a single point in space: that would be demanding far too much of both the aiming system, and the weapons platform, particularly since the platform itself is in motion.

 

[TheDutchman]

I think it would be better to find where the mortars are firing from and call in a counter battery of 155's. That would be the logical way of thinking but hey thats the Army.

 

[Cosmoline]

The money would be far better spent on getting better intelligence. Trying to shoot the shells out of the air makes exactly as much sense as trying to shoot the pistol out of the criminal's hand when he's trying to kill you. What we SHOULD be doing is buying ourselves an army of informants with the money. When we find the insurgents we can then go to their homes at night and slaughter them. It's brutal, unpleasant work but it gets the job done. It's a shame the Brits aren't working the Triangle with us since they're always better at that sort of work than we are.

 

[dasmi]

Friend of mine works with these things on the USS Shiloh.

 

[mons meg]

Again, everyone go back to what OEF_VET said. In my experience, the radar worked GREAT during Desert Storm, when everything north of a certain line was guaranteed to be bad guys.

No 155mm in town, it is a rough beast to handle.


What they REALLY need is LASERS!!!

 

[WolfDog]

I am an Ex-Navy CIWS tech and I can assure you that the unit is mor than capable of hitting objects much smaller than an incoming mortar round with accuracy out to approximately 10,000 yards or so and kill them easily.

The darn thing can shoot down seagulls in flight if the system is not secured from "live" status while in port and is specifically designed to shot and kill anything inbound, friendly or not in less then 3 seconds from target acquisition to target being confetti.


The new updated system no doubt is capable of more with the FLIR system added.


The older system didn't bother actually shooting at the target, it rather shoots through the target as well as two other areas in a line and tracks it own projectiles to determine the point of aim, not the actual threat. By doing so it essentially eliminates the need to precisely aim at the target, all it has to do is make sure that it's rounds are travelling through the area that the target is located as well as the other two areas to ensure a kill.

and the reason for the low cyclic rate is that if it fired any faster it would be empty in about a quarter of a second, it only holds a limited number of rounds and does not have enough ammo to fire for a full minute.