From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:17 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


T.M.Haddock writes:
#From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
#
#In article <C15yqv.L3v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
#|> From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> Jan Wolitzy writes:
#|>> The anti-shipping version is terminally guided, and so would probably
#|>> be effective were it not for the effectiveness of (cheaper) shipboard
#|> close-in defense systems.
#|>
#|> Rather a broad statement, considering the fact that no CIWS has yet
#|> received a proper testing in actual combat, with multiple missiles
#|> incoming from unknown directions. As far as I can tell all successful
#|> CIWS firings have been in tests, with a single missile or a pair arriving
#|> from a known direction. Were there any actual combat kills of a single
#|> missile yet? Not counting Silkworms :)
#
#Why not counting Silkworms?  It's an anti-ship missile isn't?

True, but it is not as severe a threat (envelope, speed, size, seeker) as
many other systems. In many ways more comparable to an aircraft threat.


#It has been reported that the Iraqi's fired something like 100 Exocets
#and numerous Silkworms, yet none are known to have hit any ships.  If
#the CIWS didn't stop them, what did?

Missile fired beyond max range, missile improperly targeted, missile
failure from poor maintenance, missile diverted by ECM, missile taken
out by other systems. The record against defenseless merchant vessels
during the "tanker war" was pretty bad, so this is not really surprising.


#Wasn't a British frigate or such credited with downing several missiles
#with its CIWS while operating near that big island near Kuwait city?
#Wasn't the Missouri also involved?

My apologies. Being gun-oriented I tend to forget that Sea Wolf is in
the CIWS class. Possibly the best (Aerospatiale complaints
notwithstanding :) ). Or was it a Sea Wolf ship?


#The only way you could have "multiple missiles incoming from unknown
#directions", is to be on the open ocean at war with some other major
#sea power or somekind of surprise attack while in a inland sea or such.

That's what I was getting at. The original poster seemed to be questioning
the effectiveness of antiship missiles due to the effectiveness of shipboard
close in defense systems. My response was meant to ask "Effective against
what?" There are many different threat levels, and the systems are meant
to address them all, yet we've really only seen the lower end of the
threat spectrum.


#Besides, each CIWS station is responsible for only a small quadrant
#of the ship's perimeter and acts independently and automatically (in
#the case of Phalanx at least).  None of them cover a 360 deg circle by
#itself.

Check out the FFG-7s some time :) Ships carrying Goalkeeper typically have
only a single mount as well.


#And what about the Falklands?

Only two British ships had a CIWS (Sea Wolf), and they were used only
against aircraft. As I recall Aerospatiale had a field day touting
Exocet afterwards.


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"War must be looked upon as a business, and subject, like any other business,
to business principles. War is the business of destruction of life and
property of an enemy.....The most deadly and destructive implements of war
are the most humane, and the producers of them may justly be looked upon as
humanitarians."     ----- Hudson Maxim (the other Maxim)