Jump to content

Talk:Close-in weapon system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turkish Laser

[edit]

I see the Turkish laser ciws is heavily footnoted, but it's also very improbable. I moved it to the bottom and editted it.

Goalkeeper info

[edit]

Some information about the Goalkeeper CIWS can be found at [1]

To remind me when I make the article sometime in my Copious Free Time. Feel free to beat me to it. :-) Kim Bruning 14:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Automagical CIWS

[edit]

A CIWS is an autonomous system. The computer selects the target. This dependancy on computer decision may explain the Captain/Christ It Wont Shoot.

Sure -- no human being would possess a quick enough nervous system to handle up to several incoming missiles and planes in essentially the same instant. The crew's nervous systems would be busy at work making them -eh- nervous, I guess... --Wernher 19:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)\
The CIWS can work in either a semi-automatic or fully-automatic mode. In semi-automatic, the gun tracks a target as usual, but does not fire until a human operator tells it to do so. I would imagine this would be useful against ASuW aircraft and slow moving ASMs like the Silkworm. It would also be very helpful in an environment in which both friendly missiles are outgoing, and enemy missiles are incoming, as the Phalanx can not determine friend from foe (if a SH-60 Seahawk helicopter tries to land on the back of, say, a Perry-class frigate and the CIWS is in fully-automatic mode, the Seahawk will be fired on). Fully automatic would be best for use against supersonic and multiple targets. (USMA2010 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Logically, I would think the CIWS would only fire on inbound targets above a certain speed, ergo the outbound missles will not be fired upon. This could be accomplished using doppler. Also, the helicopter would only be going at a speed not approaching an inbound target and the speed of the rotating blades would not meet the profile of an inbound target.

Check out this link.

[edit]

http://www.defencejournal.com/nov98/angrysea.htm

This page also contains the same dual spelling of Mr. Hanif's first name. Is there any way to verify the gentleman's name?

question

[edit]

Can the system use 2 guns per target? or is each CIWS gun/kit on a separate computer? I saw the control panel, but i guess the navy doesn't want people to know how to run killing machines. Kinda like how railroads dissagree with train sim games, that treach people to run trains.

It can, but that would be a waste of valuable ammo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munchito696 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIWS Missile Systems

[edit]

"The current trend in CIWS is to use missile systems instead of guns, because guns have certain limitations ... Because of their greater range, a missile-CIWS can also be dual-used as a short-ranged area-defence anti-air weapon, eliminating the need of a second mount for this role. " Is it just me, or is this just a little to biased against guns and towards the use of missiles as point defence? Explaining the negatives of one type of system (ie guns), and the benefits of another type (missiles) kinda skews the point a little. Perhaps if someone mentioned disadvantages of missiles (such as once those 6 missiles have been expended, the mount is totally useless), and the benefits of guns (fire "warning shots", <10 min reloading time for Goalkeeper, more difficult to jam or whatever), this might help to make the article more neutral. 202.72.148.102 07:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question was the use of a sea dart agaisnt an exocet missle the first combat use of a missle on missle engagement.This was during the gulf war i think when an iraqi plane fired on a us ship and a royal navy ship shot the missle down after the us ship launched chaff and tried to engage with a phalax system. Corustar 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC). i have just found the info on the phalax page.Corustar 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RIM-66/SM-2 Standard Missile

[edit]

I know that the Standard has the ability to intercept some cruise and anti-ship missiles, and was wondering if this would justify it's mentioning in this article? Any thoughts? (USMA2010 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The Sea Dart also has this ability, however its not its primary job. so maybe mentioning about SAM which can intercept missles would be relevant to the article.Corustar 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Article discusses Close In Weapon Systems - missiles like Standard and Sea Dart are very definately classified as Area Defence missile systems, and as such are not "Close In" - whether they can intercept missiles or not. Further, i dont believe that Standards are overly effective in launching/intercepting inbound anti-ship missiles (especially supersonic) within a 2km range that is typical of CIWS systems, let alone multiple missiles - the reaction system simply isnt fast enough i would imagine (particularly with a 1s warm up time of Standards). At the extreme, rifle/pistol bullets are capable of shooting down stuff ("Golden BB"), and presumably missiles as well, however this is highly improbable - though extending your argument that they can destroy missiles would mean that every small arms would also deserve a mention. Thus, i dont think Area AA should be included in the article. 58.7.186.48 08:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oto 76mm DART in CIWS mode

[edit]

What does everyone think about adding main gun with anti-missile guided munitions used in CIWS role? -- Adeptitus (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that it is meant for and actually can knock out the missile in the last few seconds before impact (the meaning of "close-in") then I don't see a problem. Roger (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's meant for and actually can knock out the missile in the last seconds before impact, and it says so on it's page . And so can the Bofors 57 Mk 3 cannon, AKA the Mk 110 57 mm gun which was selected for the Zumwalt as a CIWS. In fact both these guns can intercept missiles and ranges rivaling missile CIWS, and I'm surprised they aren't mentioned on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DArhengel (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CIWS-sparrow missiles

[edit]

The statement "Evolved Sea Sparrow missile, used aboard all Sea Sparrow-capable warships" may be incorrect, as trainable launchers such as the Mk 132 GML of the NSSMS Mk 57 and GMLS Mk 29 systems require modification in order to be capable of using the heavier, faster, longer-range quick-reaction ESSM. Also, there are modifications to the hardware and software of the fire controlling systems. I.E. not all NSSMS ships, and not even all re-architectured NSSMS (RNSSMS) ships are ESSM capable; they do not use missiles which they are not capable of using; ESSM is not used on those Sea Sparrow-capable ships. Suggest changing word "all" to read "some". 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed ranges

[edit]

There is no way the 20mm M-61 has almost twice the range of the heavier, faster 30mm GAU-8. As it says "lighter projectiles have shorter effective ranges". Then look at the numbers for all the other 30mm+ weapons...all 10,000m+. But somehow the notoriously ballistically poor 20mm round matches them, while the superior GAU-8 30mm round makes a very poor last place? Sorry, I don't buy it. Considering that the same table on DARDO gives identical numbers, only with the 20mm taking last place, I'm comfortable saying this is an obvious mistake, and have swapped the numbers..45Colt 08:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Sorry, 10,000ft+.

Speed of anti-ship missile

[edit]

"This also makes the timeframe for interception relatively short; for supersonic missiles moving at 1,500 metres per second (4,900 ft/s) it is approximately one-third of a second."

Which anti-ship missiles travel 1500 meters per second? That is 3355 miles per hour, about Mach 5 at sea level. Any examples? I don't think so. This is a nonsense calculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.147.177.54 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Close-in weapon system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Close-in_weapon_system&oldid=1200978571"