Quesiton about Burke Flight IIAs and Phalanx

They can and in fact I have a couple videos of them doing just that- hitting speedboats with Sea Sparrow. However there is a minimum range inside of which Sea Sparrow would be useless. The fact remains that there are things Phalanx can do that can’t be covered by SeaSparrow and deleting Phalanx to save a few dollars seems foolish.

There may be other light gun systems (25mm mk 38) that can do the job and that are less expensive and more capable for that specific job than Phalanx.

http://www.eo.kollmorgen.com/product_spec26.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/BAE_Systems_Will_Deliver_Mk_38_Mod_2_Gun_Mounts_To_US_Navy.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/bae-receives-39m-delivery-order-for-mk38-naval-25mm-rws/index.php

For use against small surface targets the Burkes have the stabilised 30mm Bushmaster cannons fitted one each side.

They will be sufficiant for most small craft.

Unicorn

The Sa’ar 5 up as a good example of the hazards of over loading a small hull for the LCS to follow, it’s probably one of the worst designs of any modern warship. Stability is very marginal, zero room for growth, in fact worse than that there isn’t even room for the kit it was supposed to carry when they entered service and the weapons/equipment fit is meaningless as they can’t carry all of it and still operate effectively. The Sa’ar 5 is an object lesson in over loading a modest vessel with hugely over ambitious weapons and sensor fit and shows that at the end of the day, size does still matter. The LCS is intended for a specific role, operating in inshore waters and the weapons fit doesn’t need to match an AEGIS destroyer.

Never said it did but where it’s intended to operate is infested with missile patrol boats just like the Sa’ar and it’s got nothing on board to deal with them. How is that a smart move?

The Sa’ar 5 up as a good example of the hazards of over loading a small hull for the LCS to follow, it’s probably one of the worst designs of any modern warship. Stability is very marginal, zero room for growth, in fact worse than that there isn’t even room for the kit it was supposed to carry when they entered service and the weapons/equipment fit is meaningless as they can’t carry all of it and still operate effectively. The Sa’ar 5 is an object lesson in over loading a modest vessel with hugely over ambitious weapons and sensor fit and shows that at the end of the day, size does still matter. The LCS is intended for a specific role, operating in inshore waters and the weapons fit doesn’t need to match an AEGIS destroyer.

Impressive! What about the 57mm bofors? Seems like there is more interest in the type lately…………

True but just about any missile boat on the water can out range that. LCS doesn’t have any antiship weapons except that gun.

Probably but they don’t have those either. And you can’t use a manual mount against an incoming missile or projectile (Phalanx has shot down 5″ rounds) either.

Impressive! What about the 57mm bofors? Seems like there is more interest in the type lately…………

What is the range of the Phalanx against a surface target? Wouldn’t a large cannon (i.e. 30mm) be more effective?

Probably but they don’t have those either. And you can’t use a manual mount against an incoming missile or projectile (Phalanx has shot down 5″ rounds) either.

I would’t compare ESSM with Barak, becouse Barak is losing big time there..

Where did I? They’re not even in the same class.

Also IMO the Main gun on the AB can handle just fine Surface ships & at closer distance it gets just more deadly.

Finaly, if a ship realy gets in range of less then 500m you can use the MGs just as well.
If I recal corectly, in the incident where the US CG shot donw the Iranian plane, they had opened fire upon the Iranian PT Boats with the main gun & not the Phalanx.

There are times when the 5″ is overkill. Besides if ESSM misses do you want to say “come and get me baby because I’m too cheap to have a last ditch defense”? Another completley plausible scenario: You pull up within a mile or so of a suspected pirate or terrorist ship and it lets loose with an antitank missile. Not an RPG but a TOW or similar. You going to take that out with an ESSM? Not likely. A Phalanx would have no problem at all. So far it just seems they want to remove them to save a few bucks which sounds like jumping over a dollar to pick up a penny to me.

They can and in fact I have a couple videos of them doing just that- hitting speedboats with Sea Sparrow. However there is a minimum range inside of which Sea Sparrow would be useless. The fact remains that there are things Phalanx can do that can’t be covered by SeaSparrow and deleting Phalanx to save a few dollars seems foolish.

What is the range of the Phalanx against a surface target? Wouldn’t a large cannon (i.e. 30mm) be more effective?

I would’t compare ESSM with Barak, becouse Barak is losing big time there.

Also IMO the Main gun on the AB can handle just fine Surface ships & at closer distance it gets just more deadly.

Finaly, if a ship realy gets in range of less then 500m you can use the MGs just as well.
If I recal corectly, in the incident where the US CG shot donw the Iranian plane, they had opened fire upon the Iranian PT Boats with the main gun & not the Phalanx.

How much does a Phalanx mount weigth ? IIRC the ABs have been putting continuously new equipment onboard, and their weight growth margins might have been reached, so the Phalanx was taken out in order to make room for more needed (arguably) equipment.

OTOH, a Phalanx mount doesn’t seem that heavy…

DDG-79 (the first Flight IIA) had them as did DDG-81 but while DDG-86 still has the deck structure (and even the red “stay clear” line) the guns aren’t there. And DDG-85 doesn’t even have the mounts. As for when you might need them the picture of DDG-81 is a perfect example. Sometimes I just scratch my head and wonder what they’re thinking. They take off the Harpoons and now Phalanx. LCS at 3000tons is basically an overgrown yaught with a couple machine guns, a helicopter pad, and a RAM launcher. Check out this Israeli Saar 4.5:

8 Harpoons
6 Gabriel
32 Barak SAMs
a 76mm Oto gun
and a Phalanx. All on a hull that weighs about 1/6th of LCS.

ESSM is still SARH, isn’t it? I recall an incident were during an exercise a US carrier accidentally fired and hit a turkish Gearing DD with a Sea Sparrow, causing substantial damage to its bridge. Standard missile has a secondary AShM role, don’t see why ESSM could not also.

They can and in fact I have a couple videos of them doing just that- hitting speedboats with Sea Sparrow. However there is a minimum range inside of which Sea Sparrow would be useless. The fact remains that there are things Phalanx can do that can’t be covered by SeaSparrow and deleting Phalanx to save a few dollars seems foolish.

Nothing wrong with redundancy and ESSM isn’t going to be much use against against a speedboat. Where the 5″ gun isn’t exactly what you’d call a quick reaction weapon nor does it have a 360 degreee field of fire keeping the Phalanx mounts might have been a good idea since the cost is hardly enough to break the bank. Hopefully we won’t have to learn any expensive lessons because the bean-counters found a way to save a buck.

ESSM is still SARH, isn’t it? I recall an incident were during an exercise a US carrier accidentally fired and hit a turkish Gearing DD with a Sea Sparrow, causing substantial damage to its bridge. Standard missile has a secondary AShM role, don’t see why ESSM could not also.

How much does a Phalanx mount weigth ? IIRC the ABs have been putting continuously new equipment onboard, and their weight growth margins might have been reached, so the Phalanx was taken out in order to make room for more needed (arguably) equipment.

OTOH, a Phalanx mount doesn’t seem that heavy…

Nop, the reason Phalanx is of is becouse they think that the ESSM can handle the sjort range SAM are just fine & that having aditionaly the Phalanx would mean having system redundanci on board.

Nothing wrong with redundancy and ESSM isn’t going to be much use against against a speedboat. Where the 5″ gun isn’t exactly what you’d call a quick reaction weapon nor does it have a 360 degreee field of fire keeping the Phalanx mounts might have been a good idea since the cost is hardly enough to break the bank. Hopefully we won’t have to learn any expensive lessons because the bean-counters found a way to save a buck.

Nop, the reason Phalanx is of is becouse they think that the ESSM can handle the sjort range SAM are just fine & that having aditionaly the Phalanx would mean having system redundanci on board.