CIWS Soup?

CIWS Soup? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series

Message

deepdive -> CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 4:20:39 PM)
Take a look at this!! http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/11/uss-chancellorsville-new-details-tell.html

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 4:37:32 PM)
The article is interesting, but full of an immense amount of hyperbole. I am sure the CIWS were in safe mode for the test. Even they were on, I am sure there is a lockout to keep it from firing at its own drone. I am also sure they don't want to release any more information on ship capabilities than they need to.

CV32 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 5:04:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 The article is interesting, but full of an immense amount of hyperbole. I am sure the CIWS were in safe mode for the test. Even they were on, I am sure there is a lockout to keep it from firing at its own drone. I am also sure they don't want to release any more information on ship capabilities than they need to. This was apparently a tracking exercise as opposed to a live shoot, so I am doubtful the CIWS was even loaded with ammunition, but in any event ... From USNI News: quote: During a CSSQT for guided missile destroyer USS Russell (DDG-59) in 1995, an errant BQM-74 was destroyed by the ship’s CIWS during a live-fire missile shoot that was intended to test the ship’s surface-to-air Standard Missile and Aegis combat system.

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 5:46:00 PM)
Yeah, but the systems were live for an air defense test... The original was only a tracking test I thought. Short of it...not sure its a big deal the way the article plays it out.

CV32 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 6:04:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 Yeah, but the systems were live for an air defense test... The original was only a tracking test I thought. Short of it...not sure its a big deal the way the article plays it out. This incident with Chancellorsville was a tracking test. The previous incident with Russell was a live shoot. As for whether its a big deal, I suspect that whenever sailors are injured and a billion dollar ship takes a hit: [image]http://media.nbcsandiego.com/images/654*368/drone-Strike-Damages-Chance.jpg[/image] ... its a pretty big deal.

jdkbph -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 8:12:38 PM)
Heh... this guy (the article author) is a tool. JD

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 8:33:58 PM)
I meant a big deal from a conspiracy standpoint.

CV32 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 9:34:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 I meant a big deal from a conspiracy standpoint. I didn't read any 'conspiracy' theories in the article. Asking tough questions about what happened seems an entirely reasonable approach. Btw, Pritchett (Galrahn) is pretty well respected in defence news and blogging circles.

smudge56 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 10:19:20 PM)
The only thing that I'm concerned about is most people want drones to be totally automatic, no human control. So all we need is these things going wrong and killing innocent people. Terminator anyone [:D]

jdkbph -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 10:24:44 PM)
Well, assuming "well respected" = "knowledgeable", he should know better than to make the gigantic leap from "training accident" to "Aegis/CIWS... EPIC FAIL!!!". Aside from the fact that training exercises are typically built around specific scenarios, which may or may not assume an all hands on deck approach to systems employment, the original reports from the USN specifically call this a "tracking" exercise. I'm guessing - with full acknowledgement that I am NOT a well respected defense blogger - that live fire training (as opposed to just "tracking") is a pretty big deal, and requires lots of notice, approvals, significant preparation, etc... not something you just decide to do when a drone operator turns to his Lieutenant (JG) and says "whoops...!" JD

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 10:28:36 PM)
That article hinted at some kind of cover up by the navy for not explaining why CIWS didn't work. That is hinting at a cover up in my book.

mikmykWS -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 10:47:26 PM)
Galrahn has always been very good to us and is very credible. The former Undersecretary of the Navy used to comment on his page. The underlying issue here is you have two known targets striking one of the US's primary anti air warfare platforms. Doesn't look good at all. Mike

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 11:07:00 PM)
I agree it looks like incompetence in operating the drone at worst. I am not sure it says anything about the defensive capabilities unless we know the standing of the crew and systems. It was only a radar tracking exercise. Depending on everything else they most likely couldn't have had any weapons at ready state.

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/20/2013 11:08:08 PM)
Plus the article is poorly written. He repeats himself a couple times. It reads almost like he couldn't type it fast enough.

AdmiralSteve -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/21/2013 3:33:47 AM)
My two cents will go towards that this was just a RADAR tracking exercise and the ship had no intentions of firing a single round or missile at what is probably a very expensive piece of reusable equipment. My reading has uncovered that the drone was remotely controlled from Point Mugu and that the test was not designed to shoot the drone down. LA Times Back in my day on the USS England CG-22, their was 1 live firing of the CIWS and two of the SM-2's. Apparently the US Navy isn't too fond of live fire exercises and it makes less sense to destroy an expensive drone with an expensive missile.

MR_BURNS2 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/21/2013 4:39:47 AM)
The skipper tried to catch the drone with his ship to see what went wrong, and this he did! [;)]

smudge56 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/21/2013 8:50:30 AM)
Thats one very expensive test now [:D]

CV32 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/21/2013 5:57:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe My two cents will go towards that this was just a RADAR tracking exercise and the ship had no intentions of firing a single round or missile at what is probably a very expensive piece of reusable equipment. My reading has uncovered that the drone was remotely controlled from Point Mugu and that the test was not designed to shoot the drone down. This much appears to be common ground. What is being alleged is that the Phalanx was activated in an attempt to bring it down, and failed - and moreover, that this tidbit has been left out of the Navy press release.

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/21/2013 6:59:46 PM)
It could be it was left out because it didn't happen. I am not saying I know or should know. But he is either very bad at communicating where he is getting his info from or he is taking a huge unfounded leap. I have nothing in writing anywhere that CIWS was active or it was a live fire. It would have to have been declared a live fire well before any testing was done.

deepdive -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/21/2013 7:43:58 PM)
I find it strange that they used an subsonic drone for radar testing, those drones arent cheap. Looking at the Picture, it seems like it hit the ship at 90 deg angle and wings leweled and no signs of fuelfire or explosion on impact, could it have run out of fuel?, sailors injured by fire? thank god no one was killed. I personally think from what i read here that CIWS failed, no big deal, **** happens but when someone gets injured it becomes a big deal for the NAVY. Another blogger i have "followed" for a couple of years http://navy-matters.blogspot.no/ he is wery informative but also wery Critical of NAVY leadership. Bjørn

thewood1 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/21/2013 8:55:26 PM)
Where does it state, beyond conjecture, that CIWS failed? I see nothing that states that or hints at a source for any information about the state of the CIWS. This article seems like it is grinding an ax. How is anyone drawing the conclusion that CIWS fails. Please bring sources or even real world experience that CIWS would be active in a simple tracking test.

GGLurch -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/22/2013 9:04:41 AM)
Well, just my opinion here... There is no saying concerning the when the missile drone went out of control. It might have been very close when the crew realized that it got serious here. One has to realize that when a target pops up over the horizon, you got 45-60sec to react due to the high speed - meaning establishing a solid track and start firing. When the weapons were off-line - there might not have been enough time to get them fully up and running or the target was engaged very late. Also - the Phalanx system in use (if activated) has certain criteria to decide if it fires or not. One of the these is if the target is actually capable of hitting the ship - e.g. because of the target heading. Like I said. If the drone went out of control in very close proximity it might have been to late for a successful engagement because the max. probability for a successful hit which is determined the the weapons computer might have passed and also because the system will "walk" the fire to the target - meaning the first bullets will not hit. Another possibility is that the CIWS might not have been in automatic engagement mode - but only recommended firing to the operator. To have the weapons off-line in such exercises is not uncommon in general, either to prevent it to shoot down (expensive) target during a tracking exercise or if other ships are in the vicinity. It happened before that CIWS rounds hit other ships during exercises. E.g. the Iwo Jima incident in '89 ('88?) i believe. Additionally - A weapon can miss! Also - one has to realize that close-in weapon systems are - well - operating in close proximity. A target going 600mph can be hit and destroyed - however - damage to the ship might still happen due to shrapnel and debris. In this case, it might have also been a problem since the drone obviously did not carry any warhead that could go up when hit by CIWS. On the pictures it looks like the thing struck as a whole though, probably doing some extensive damage inside. I would have assumed some serious fire at least due to the drones fuel. All in All - To me - in all honesty - it looks like a freak accident, not at all questioning the operational capabilities of the ship and the systems itself. From my time in the (German) navy - i know there is HUGE difference between a tracking exercise and war-zone operations. Not only in terms of readiness and availability status of weapons but also in how fast the crew is hitting the engagement button. They never assumed the thing to be hostile in the first place. They were handling a tracking exercise. GG

CV32 -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/22/2013 1:25:36 PM)
Good post, GGLurch.

incredibletwo -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/22/2013 5:28:13 PM)
+1 GGLurch There's every chance the CIWS was not in automatic engagement mode due to the nature of the exercise. Source: two brothers in the RAN. [8D]

mrfeizhu -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/23/2013 1:00:34 AM)
As soon as some thing does work, the media will pick up on it and say the weapon or ship design is a failure. Years back an RPG , hit an Abrams tank in Iraq, it destroyed the tank, but the crew was un hurt, but the article said how tanks were obsolete. This was in CNN or another main stream media publication. Was the Phalanx even loaded. When i was in the navy all weapons were unloaded, and all ammunition was in the magazine, but that was in the 70's, the only thing that was loaded was part of the crew a lot of time.

Apocal -> RE: CIWS Soup? (11/23/2013 6:40:44 PM)
Usually when my ship (USS Enterprise) did a tracking exercise our CIWS was unloaded and locked into position.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1