Talk:Phalanx CIWS

message: I can't provide online source for this, I know it first hand that Turkish Navy has Phalanx systems. I have seen it on several Turkish frigates myself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.134.112 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish Navy

message: The Saar 5s carry a 20mm Phalanx auto cannon for knocking down anti-ship missiles, and, in this case, the Phalanx may have only been partially successful. A second C-802, fired at the same time, locked onto a near by Egyptian freighter, and sank it. Both ships were about 60 kilometers off the coast. The C-820 has a max range of 120 kilometers, and moves along at about 250 meters a second. Phalanx is supposed to be turned on whenever the ship is likely to have an anti-ship missile fired at it. The radar can spot incoming missiles out to about 5,000 meters, and the 20mm cannon is effective out to about 2,000 meters. With incoming missiles moving a 250 meters a second, you can see why Phalanx is set to automatic. There's not much time for human intervention. The Israelis are not releasing any information about how their defenses (including the electronic ones) handled the incoming C-802s.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.169.251 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Range

message: 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)
replies: text: The tick mark is probably the result of a successful test firing against a towed target. Royhandy 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tick mark on photo

message: 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)
thread_title: Friendly fire incident

message: 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)
thread_title: "Last line of defense"

message: 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)
thread_title:  SeaRAM 

message: 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)
thread_title: CIWS 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Royal Navy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CIWS 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Source here. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that site qualifies as a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:690D:3100:D1D9:71F4:E375:313B (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalek? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Amplification of the "link" between the CIWS FLIR optical sensors and RAM RIM-116 might be useful - how is this link supported; does the statement only apply with an integrated SeaRAM weapon system?
The use of term "companion" systems for Sea-RAM and CIWS may imply to casual readers that these heavy-weight systems, Sea-RAM and CIWS, are somewhere used simultaneously (as in side-by-side companions) on the same ship, and not used as one or the other but never both.  Suggest a separate article for Sea-RAM (separate from CIWS and separate from RAM (regular RAM GMLS Mk 49)).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links and Companionship 

message: The article doesn't explain what these systems do. The article says there is a gun, electronics/computer, and a radar, but it doesn't say how they are used. I believe that the computer detects targets using the radar and fire the gun at them autonomously. Is this correct? 
One could imagine that the computer reports the existence of a target and alerts on operator who approves the use of the gun. One could even imagine that the computer reports the existence of a target and aids in the aiming, but that a human actual decides whether to fire or not (to "pull the trigger" as it were).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.114.7 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated fire?

message: The caption of a US Navy photo of a reloading operation contains an incorrect hometown(Pocatello Indiana instead of Pocatello Idaho)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.82.17 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect hometown 

message: FYI only (not RS);
"Mk 15 Phalanx was designed so that it could be used as a stand-alone system. It can for example be bolted to the deck of any ship, even those that lack any kind of combat systems. Just plug it in and it is ready to go. So the applications include not just combat vessels but auxiliaries such as tankers, amphibious ships, transports and cargo vessels. There is no other equivelent gun system in the west. The American/Dutch/French Goalkeeper like Phalanx has its own onboard sensor package for autonomous operation but it requires deck penetration and thus can not be easily applied to ships that were not designed for it. Goalkeeper has a more powerful weapon with greater range and lethality and can track more targets than Phalanx though. The Chinese have a system, the Type 730 which is practically a carbon-copy of Goalkeeper. 
The Italian Dardo and Swiss Seaguard not only require deck penetration for the weapon mounts but also depend heavily on the ships own combat command system for target data and fire control. The ships Target Indication Radar for example is the systems primary search element but it can also take data from the ships ESM system or an IRST while target tracking and fire control is by an off-mount electro-optical director. These systems are more massive than a stand-alone solution and naturally require much greater ship integration but have the advantage of much more powerful sensors locating higher up on the ship and the ability to handle many more targets at much greater ranges. 
As an anti-missile system Phalanx was intended to be temporary - a sotp-gap solution until RAM was fielded, but RAM was more than a decade late so Phalanx became a fixture on many ship classes and for far longer than ever intended. In the 1980's the British Royal Navy conducted a study on the effectiveness of various anti-ship missile defenses and determined that against an Exocet-type target (relatively slow and unsophisticated) Phalanx would likely not achieve a kill until the target approached within 300 meters of the ship. For Goalkeeper the kill range was 800 meters. This is important because at ranges of less than 1 km even if the target is destroyed, fragments from it will still be travelling fast enough to pepper the ship (like a huge shotgun) and could potentially put the ship out of action like in the USS Worden incident off Vietnam. The RN stopped buying Phalanx and Goalkeeper after that. But to be fair, neither of these systems were intended to be a ships primary defense against missiles but rather its last-ditch defense, when everything else had failed. 
Today Phalanx in the USN is no longer employed primarily to engage missile targets but is retained for use against small surface craft. To this end surviving installations are fitted with Infra-red camera's for identification and accurate tracking of small fast targets on the surface." http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130330185653AAvmARK
Feel free to comment.  - thewolfchild  15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: CIWS 3

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Phalanx CIWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091007164338/http://www.raytheon.com:80/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_ciws_datash.pdf to http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_ciws_datash.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: links to a ship.Phd8511 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference for Phalanx 

message: Hi, the unit cost for these systems (35 million $) seemed quite eccessive, so I looked it up and it does appear to be so. Depending on the source you check it seems to be 3.8 mil (globalsecurity.org), 5.6 mil (navysite.de, bombshock.com) or 7.8 mil (deagel.com) and an upgrade cost of 4.5 + 1 mil (defensetech.org). Now you'll notice that most of these aren't particularly reliable sites, so I'll just put in the globalsecurity one till something better pops up. Cheers, --Amendola90 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit cost 

message: I think that this Phalanx CIWS page on Wikipedia should have a reference on its official designation, like the "Mk 15" in the US Armed Forces ... -- RoyKabanlit (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Designations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Phalanx CIWS. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713122126/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847389509&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847389509&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820113825/http://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil:80/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/Guns/ciws.htm to https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/Guns/ciws.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *Target Mach 2 https://vz.ru/society/2017/4/17/866694.html.
Is that understood?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.198.97 (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  *'''Target Mach''' 2 <ref>https://vz.ru/society/2017/4/17/866694.html</ref>. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Phalanx CIWS. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015120203/http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp961024/10240334.htm to http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp961024/10240334.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128200002/http://www.timripley.co.uk/articles/jdw_uk_deploys_c_ram.pdf to http://www.timripley.co.uk/articles/jdw_uk_deploys_c_ram.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Phalanx CIWS. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714144716/http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?CatID=National&ArticleID=news%2Fcapfeed%2Fnational%2Fn111837A.xml to http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?CatID=National&ArticleID=news%2Fcapfeed%2Fnational%2Fn111837A.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 'No missile had in fact been fired, but the chaff firing was in response to an erroneous "missile firing alert" that was actually an oil well head going up. The Iraqis had been setting the oil wells alight in Kuwait for some days. Exeter had relieved HMS Gloucester in the Northern Persian Gulf a few days before and in the weeks before that, Gloucester had shot down a Silkworm missile aimed at Missouri'.
This differs from most other accounts and therefore needs a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.113 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably incorrect - needs a source. 

message: Unless I'm mistaken, I think SeaRAM uses the Phalanx radar to fire RAM missiles, but is there a version of Phalanx that combines the Gatling gun with RAM missiles?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.53.61 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a version of the Phalanx that combines the gun & RAM missiles? 

message: Once a Phalanx is out of ammo, how long does it take to reload? And how many Phalanx rounds does a warship carry and how many times can a Phalanx be reloaded?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.53.61 (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once a Phalanx is out of ammo, how long does it take to reload?