Talk:RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile

message: If Phalanx is "less capable" please cite source that says it is less capable and explain why RAM is "more capable". This article doesn't currently support the "less capable" remark so adding it is just someones opinion. --Dual Freq 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better. --Dual Freq 19:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phalanx is "less capable" because its max. range is between 2000-3000 meters, a fraction of the range of RAM. The expected real-world kill-distance of an incoming anti-ship missile for Phalanx is about 500 m or less, still close enough to possibly cause damage to the ship and everyone on board soiling their pants. Phalanx can engage one target at a time, while RAM can engage several targets simultaneously. Phalanx is useless against supersonic, erratically maneuvering missiles (like SS-N-27 "Sizzler") because it cannot predict target course. Phalanx cannot engage missiles faster than mach 2; RAM can. Phalanx has a limited kill probability since it fires kinetic-only rounds; even a direct hit doesn't ensure destruction of the incoming missile, while RAM uses a continuous rod warhead of the Sidewinder; no direct hit is required for destruction of the target. This makes RAM "more capable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.213.202 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Phalanx cannot predict target course' -- Got a reference for this? Seems like a necessary feature of a guidance system for a weapons system whose target moves >2km during the projectile travel time. Even if the target was assumed to have no motion normal to the firing platform, CIWS would need to put the beaten zone far, far ahead of the last known position of the threat. 216.96.229.181 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RAM / Phalanx

message: Is there a list available which  USN units are armed with the RAM?
I was just looked on the DDG-51 article it saya that on the destroyers the ESSM will replace the Phalanx system. But afaik the ESSM is a short-range missile not a phalanx-system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.180.230 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am just speculating here but this appears to have developed out of the mindset that the primary use of CIWS was close-in missile defense while in later years, especially after the Cole-incident surface targets like RHIBS and fast attack craft came into focus again. The use of phalanx as a last-resort weapon against (supersonic) AShMs became very doubtful, especially after closer examination of former soviet AShMs, hence the US participation in RAM development. Starting with Phalanx Blk 1B the multirole capability of Phalanx seems to be more important than pure CIWS capability against missiles, therefore all DDG-51s do now have at least one CIWS and all Phalanx are in the process of upgrading to Blk 1B. RAM still is the primary CIWS system on ships where last-resort defense against missiles is deemed more important, such as on CVNs and it is used in conjunction with Phalanx, such as on LHA-6. 123.208.81.232 (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Range-wise, both Phalanx and RAM fall under VSHORAD (very short range) as neither can reach outside 5km zone. Before you quote me on this, the range of RAM is still secret, but it is estimated, per comparison to missiles of similar size and age, to be at least twice that of Phalanx. ESSM range is around 50 km according to most sources, or 27nm/30miles. That's SHORAD, or short range. This in turn means OTH capacity, as a sensor at a height of 30 meters will see horizon a bit shy of 20km away. At - again, unconfirmed - max of 4 mach, ESSM has radically larger intercept zone than either Phalanx or RAM. And to understand what the HELL are the reasons, just look at speeds. Modern ASM, esp. soviet, will be high subsonic all the way to mach 3, depending on type. This means, that the SLOWEST of them will be in range of Phalanx for about 10 seconds, at best, and the fastest of the ASMs will be in that zone for as short as 3 seconds. Wa-totem (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: USN units armed with RAM - there may be no such list.  All CVNs should have 2-each RAM by now and upgraded to Block-1, (even decommissioned K-Hawk CV-63, Connie CV-64, JFK CV-67 had RAM).  All LPD-17s are being built with 2-each RAM B1.  Other Amphibs, LHA-1, LHD-1 and LSD-41/49 classes have all had 2-ea RAM for quite a while, upgraded to B1.  Even some remaining Spruance DD-963 destroyers had a RAM GML installed aft on their fantail before decommissioning and/or break-up.  Newer and smaller LCS-2 platforms may integrate a version of single RAM, perhaps using the Weapons Direction & Control (WD&C) software component of SSDS Mk 2 (or Mk 1).  Very old FFG-7, may be resurrecting plans for RAM backfits just prior to decommisioning and/or foreign military sales; (problem on FFGs has always been how to integrate with a new or modified fire control system which would be fast enough to tell RAM where to point and shoot.  The obsolecent AN/UYK-7 based weapons control processors (with large cathode ray tube AN/UYA-4 displays) are not fast enough against today's ASCMs).  2nd problem with FFGs has been real estate, where topside to put the launcher; old plans had it between phalanx CIWS Mk 15 and Smoke-Stack; newer plans may include midship location of former Separate Target Illuminating Radar (STIR) Mk 54 (between 76mm gun and Main mast), or maybe a Sea-RAM in place of phalanx CIWS Mk 15; the Mk-13 GMLS location forward would be an even worser Green-Water loading problem than on the CVN-68 (Big Wave loss of 2001). 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Units 

message: I'm removing the blurb about the "evolve system" because it is vague and I believe relates to the SeaRAM version below it. If I'm wrong please clean-up this part of the article.Mdewman6 (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SeaRam and Evolve system 

message: May I ask in which order the nations are listed? 92.201.141.199 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Anybody out there? How about go after the alphabet? That would be: American, Egyptian, German, Greek, Saudi, South Korean, and the Turkish. 77.180.56.63 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: operators order

message: Surprised (well, being Wiki, not that surprised) that no mention is made that the missile is based on Sidewinder (motor and warhead) and Stinger (seeker) technology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See: RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile#Block 0 Hcobb (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation?

message: 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 together 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)).
[Seems like a particular issue for wikipedia that seems to prefer organizing articles by weapon delivery systems (I.E. RIM-116 missile) rather than by the weapon system (I.E. RAM GMWS Mk 31 including lauching system RAM GMLS Mk 49)].
Perhaps it might mention that 11-cell SeaRAM weapon system may be a lower-cost alternative to 21-cell RAM GMLS Mk 49 since the host combat system on a proposed ship platform would not have to be acquired, modified or re-designed in order to integrate RAM, (I.E. provide a fire control system - telling RAM where to point and shoot its missiles).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy Companionship (sea-RAM) 

message: Can anyone find any other links to the forward RAM launcher onboard USS Nimitz CVN-68 being washed away by a big wave during the 2001-2002 sail around horn of South America from east coast Hampton Roads (RCOH) to its west coast homeport?  Afterwards a wave break structure was then installed or modified to be taller.
https://www.neco.navy.mil/synopsis_file/N0018908R00016-2-08_PERFORMANCE_WORK_STATEMENT.doc 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Wave washes away RAM Launcher from ship 

message: Is the quoted cost per missile or per launcher?Lonjers (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: "There are plans in place to equip Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates with RAM launchers." I don't think this refers to US frigates. There are very few remaining with the remaining due to be decommissioned within a few years, and it's doubtful the Navy would spend that kind of money upgrading a ship on its way out. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications to FFG-7 class 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/
*:Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done.  No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The main article states that the RIM-166 "rolls around the longitudinal axis to stabilize the flight path much like a bullet."
This is totally incorrect. In order for the missile to be spin stabilized, it would have to roll at a rate of several Kilohertz which can be verified by analysis of the gyroscopic motion. At this roll rate, the internal stresses would be so high, the missile would tear itself apart. The statement should be revised to reflect that spin stability is not the reason for imparting roll to the RIM-116 airframe. 66.62.17.2 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, but do you have a link or reference that explains what the purpose of the rolling is. How is the missile stabilized? --Dual Freq (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary reason for rolling the airframe is to save on cost of both the control actuator system and the seeker angle resolver capability. The single set of control surfaces are phased with deflection commands to achieve pitch and yaw motion. The rolling seeker head has two passive RF antennas that can determine angle via interferometry in pitch and yaw due to the roll. A good description of this weapon is found in the document: dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA390349‎  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.17.2 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIM-116 is NOT rolled to obtain in-flight stability 

message: https://news.usni.org/2016/08/17/navy-studying-installing-searam-destroyers-ship-classes
Cantab1985 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Navy studying SeaRAM for more warships 

message: What's the service ceiling of the RAM in miles/km? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.231.6 (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the service ceiling of the RAM?