[FIXED B549] Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (Full Version)

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



Message


AlmightyTallest -> [FIXED B549] Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/21/2014 3:35:55 PM)

Came across this in one of my logs using 1.04 RC3 with Build 546

quote:

2/20/2014 6:41:53 PM - : Gun (20mm/100 Mk15 Phalanx Blk 1B Burst [300 rnds]) is attacking YJ-18 [3M54E Klub Copy, Rocket Boosted Penetrator] #301 with a base PH of 80%. Target speed modifier: -82%. Final PH: 1%. Die Roll: 87 - MISS


Not sure if a dedicated and updated Anti-missile defense system would be so inadequate versus a 60 foot high sea skimmer.

There's evidence that Phalanx's can be cued to face the threat via the much longer range and more capable AEGIS system and self defense subsystems of the ship, not necessarily having to rely solely on their on-board radars, which can be used as a backup in case of a failure of the main AEGIS system.

http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/CIWS_article.pdf

quote:

The Phalanx can also be interfaced
with virtually any ship combat system to
provide additional sensor and fire-control
capability, and can provide target designation
for other shipboard weapons such as
Raytheon’s Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM).


http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.htm

In reference to Phalanx Block 1:

quote:

In automatic control, the gun will prioritize the first six threats it sees at about 10,000 yards (9,100 m) and engage at 4,000 yards (3,600 m).


The above link shows that Phalanx is expected to start shooting at up to 6 simultaneous cued incoming AShM at a range of nearly 4km!! Which seems to coincide well with the modeling program used in the thesis below, indicating that the missiles can be engaged from 4km and down to 2km without the defending ship being struck by debris.

The above does not address the accuracy, ammunition and dispersion improvements of the Block 1B, where engagement ranges are expected to be even higher than what's quoted above.

quote:

Block 1 baseline 1 replaced the hydraulic gun drive with a pneumatic (air-driven) gun drive system that increased the rate of fire to 4,500 rounds per minute. Search radar sensitivity was also improved in this upgrade. Block 1 baseline 2 introduced further reliability upgrades along with a muzzle restraint to decrease dispersion.


quote:

Phalanx Block 1A incorporated a high-order language computer in order to better process engagement algorithms and provided improved performance against maneuvering targets. Block 1A also provided for basic integration with the Ship Self Defense System and enabled RAM missile engagement through the Phalanx detection and track function.



quote:

Block 1B improvements include Optimized Gun Barrels (OGB) and a new integrated forward looking infrared system (FLIR). The OGB are electrically controlled, pneumatically driven and fire a new Enhanced Lethality Cartridge (ELC). The Phalanx FLIR provides increased capability to search, track and engage coastal warfare threats as well as provide better anti-ship missile defense.



http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/2673/CIWS?page=#.U6WXMPldVAo

quote:

The 21 cell RAM can be cued using bearing data from the SLQ-32 system as well as the main radar.

quote:

RAM is fire and forget and the missile locks onto a target autonomously, but the 21 cell version still needs the ships radar or ESM system to tell it what direction to point in and when to fire.

The 11 round Sea RAM has same the capability for autonomous operation Phalanx has, but it can still use the ships more powerful radars and ESM sensors to let it engage at longer ranges.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-15.htm

quote:

Block 1A incorporated a new High Order Language Computer (HOLC) to provide more processing power over the obsolete general purpose digital computer, improved fire control algorithms to counter maneuvering targets, search multiple weapons coordination to better manage engagements


quote:

Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) upgrade allows engagement of small, high-speed, maneuvering surface craft and low, slow-moving aircraft, and hovering helicopters. This upgrade incorporates a thermal imager, an automatic acquisition video tracker, and a stabilization system for the imager, providing both day and night detection of threats. The thermal imager improves the system's ability to engage anti-ship cruise missiles by providing more accurate angle tracking information to the fire control computer. Additionally, the FLIR assists the radar in engaging some ASCM's bringing a greater chance of ship survivability. The thermal imager Automatic Acquisition Video Tracker (AAVT) and stablilization system provide surface mode and electro-optic (EO) angle track. Operational evaluation of Block 1B, conducted aboard USS Underwood (FFG-36) and the Self-Defense Test Ship, was completed in August 1999.


quote:

Baseline 2C improvements provide an integrated multi-weapon operations capability. During integrated operations, the command system controls CIWS sensors, target reports, mode employment, and doctrine. The sensors are utilized to provide 360 degree search and track coverage, while providing track data to, and receiving designations from, the Command system. This CIWS installation includes a conversion kit for each weapon group to facilitate ease and safety of maintenance; the "maintenance enclosure" kit installs the below-deck equipment for a gun mount in a prefabricated enclosure with the mount located above it.


www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a294604.pdf

Public info showcasing the improvements to Phalanx that seems to indicate a longer range engagement against more advanced maneuvering supersonic sea skimming missiles.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272384.pdf

It's hinted again in the above document that the Anti-ship missiles need to be destroyed at 1.5km or more in order to prevent the defending ship from being damaged by debris, and there's models showing the approximate number of parts that might hit the ship at what ranges inside of 1.5km. This might be used to help with modeling damage by missiles that are shot down by Phalanx within certain thresholds. It also seems to indicate that Phalanx engages beyond the 1nm range given in the current CMANO database.

Page 1 says the following:

quote:

As the last line of defense, PHALANX will automatically engage
and destroy ASMs that penetrate a ship's primary defense envelope at a range
where ballistic missile fragments will not damage the ship.
I


quote:

It is designed to destroy targets at a range far enough from the ship to prevent the subsequent
missile fragments from continuing on and inflicting significant collateral damage to
the ship. It must also mesh well with the other defensive weapon systems to
provide sufficient overlap, but not to engage while the longer range systems can
still be effective.


Page 11 says the following:

quote:

The trend of the number of hits in Table 1 is convincing; anti-ship missiles must be destroyed at Phalanx maximum range, in order to prevent significant collateral damage. Therefore, the sources of PHALANX dispersion must be understood and corrected.


The table referenced to shows the approximate number of hits that a defending ship might take from fragments of supersonic sea skimming missiles using the older Phalanx blocks. The range table maxes out at 1500 meters, with a chance for 1 to 2 fragments to hit the ship, and then goes exponentially higher as the engagement range comes down to 1200, 900, and 600 meters respectively. This indicates that all Phalanx systems are expected to destroy incoming threats greater than 1.5km given the scenario is modeling a supersonic sea skimmer.


http://books.google.com/books?id=l-DzknmTgDUC&pg=PA468&lpg=PA468&dq=Phalanx+Mk15+Block+1B+range&source=bl&ots=2taMD1laKk&sig=lx-0qoHm0b5RpNm3pmTwlnGbwdA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TAmmU7mlEcGqyASOsoDYAw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Phalanx%20Mk15%20Block%201B%20range&f=false

quote:

Block 1 was successfully tested in 185 engagements in 1985-94, targets including 155mm shells and Vandal (ex Talos) and BQM-34 drones, some of which popped up during flight.



Block 1A replaces the original CDC 469A computer with a new CDC AMP high-order language (HOL: ADA language) computer using R3000 RISC processors (said to be 100 times as fast as the current unit). The new computer accomodates new nonlinear spotting algorithms to deal with maneuvering targets. For example, and FFT is applied to the smoothed (Kalman-filtered) target track to extract regularities for prediction. The effect of greater computer power is to double effective gun range.



Aren't Vandal or ex Talos missiles Mach 2.5, with a smaller frontal cross section than most Russian Anti Ship Cruise Missiles?


quote:

Block 1 can engage targets at steeper angles. The 2D scanning antenna of Block 0 is replaced by a four-plate back to back phased array antenna. The radar switches through four alternative radar beams (extending up to the zenith), and gains data rate by back-to-back operation. The search volume increases enormously, since Block 0 was largely limited to low altitude targets (it could detect high-angle targets at short range). The new radar detects targets at the maximum search angle of Block 0 out to maximum range. It uses multiple PRFs to resolve range ambiguity.


Given the info about an earlier Phalanx Block 3.6km engagement down to 2km, it might also indicate multiple chances for the Phalanx (and more chances for later blocks )to engage the incoming threat without risking damage to the defending ship, with the associated risks indicating engagements down to 600m as shown in the chart. Phalanx is expected to engage supersonic maneuvering sea skimmers, so I think the target speed modifier might have to be adjusted for dedicated CIWS type systems set up for this kind of engagement.




mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 4:13:45 PM)

This is great stuff but need to look at the Klub too to get the complete story. This was a missile that was designed in part to defeat CIWS systems.

Given all that what do you think the modifier should reasonably be?

Mike




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 5:22:33 PM)

quote:

This was a missile that was designed in part to defeat CIWS systems.


Exactly, which explains the extensive amounts of upgrades and testing of the newer blocks of CIWS to combat these more complex threats.

I certainly learned a thing or two myself in the process trying to find out why the latest contracts from Raytheon are for Phalanx Block 1B's to still be manufactured, retrofitted and installed on major combatants given the current advanced maneuvering supersonic anti-ship threats available today.

With the pieces of info above, it points to a system that although looks basically the same as the one from the 70's, certainly isn't in regards to processing power, advanced targeting algorithms to combat high speed maneuvering missiles, the addition of extra, and passive IR sensors to work with the radars, and phased array radars and networking capabilities with the ships ESM and Aegis radars to maximize engagement times. Also outlined above is the many steps taken to minimize dispersion and increase accuracy with thicker and longer barrels braced together, and new longer ranged 20mm Enhanced Lethality Cartridge. They basically did everything they could as outlined in the papers to squeeze out the maximum accuracy and range from the 20mm cartridge for use against the new threat missiles to enable engagements at range to prevent damage to the defending ship.

If I had to guess the probability of a kill on the Klub copy, I would guess that Phalanx 1B should have something like a 80% chance within 4km, with the chance to engage multiple times as the missile closed the range. This is just my guess, but I would think that anything you guys come up with is better than the 1% that's currently given in the sim. Older blocks of Phalanx could and should be penalized as some of the older versions really couldn't effectively engage the current high speed and maneuvering threats, which is the entire reason for the upgrades to the Block 1B series.


It's not a big leap when based on the tests against mach 2.5 Talos missiles that did terminal maneuvers to hazard a guess that some of these complex algorithms in the later Phalanx systems calculate the incoming speed of the missile while outside effective gun range and allow the gun to start firing sooner than expected to make sure the supersonic threat flies into the path of 20mm at the maximum effective range. Kill assessments are quickly made, and if the threat is still approaching another burst is applied until hopefully it's defeated.

The main thing I think would help should be the range increase of the Phalanx gun system in the database, with the 1B having more range than the other blocks, over 4km. The older blocks starting engagements at 4km or 3.6km based on the public info and the ability to allow it and other Blocks to take a shot at an anti-ship missile, quickly asses in text if missile is not destroyed in first burst, re-engage, and repeat right down to within the 600m mark as in the thesis. With an increasing chance of damage to the defending ship even if the missile is destroyed inside of 1.5km. This may quickly deplete the Phalanx magazine, but it would seem to better represent it's ability to stop multiple incoming missiles as it was designed for, until it's reloaded again.

Don't know if this helps, it's just how I feel about it given the info presented.


Here's a Youtube video of the supposed Chinese YJ-18, making terminal "S" shaped maneuvers as it nears the target. The very reason for upgraded computing power and advanced algorithms within the Phalanx 1B is for this purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3taU59z05A

I don't know if you want to model the faulty warhead though, apparently the missile strikes so fast, the warhead doesn't explode until it exits the ship on the other side.





mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 5:59:41 PM)

Doesn't look like a Klub.[:)]

Thanks!

Mike




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 6:03:33 PM)

LOL, I know, it's very hard to find actual test footage though, instead of animations. Even though the missile may do some terminal maneuvers, they eventually have to point at the targeted ship in order to hit it though. And when your going mach 2.5 or more, you won't be making a very tight turn, even at 10G's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote

quote:

The GQM-163 Coyote is a supersonic sea skimming target built by Orbital Sciences and used by the United States Navy as a successor to the MQM-8 Vandal.


quote:

Flight altitude Sea-skimming: 15 feet (cruise phase), 13ft (terminal phase)
Boost time Hercules MK 70 solid-fueled rocket
Speed Mach 3.0-4.0 at 35,000-60,000ft, Mach 2.5 at 13-15ft


http://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/Publications/Coyote_factsheet.pdf

I can't see how the Navy wouldn't have some idea on how to deal with the supersonic anti ship threat given the type of test drones it's using. In the pdf above showing the flight profiles it's probably more of a target than the real thing with it's sudden sprint 10 miles from the target at mach 2.5 only 15 feet above the waves. It's not like the U.S. Navy couldn't turn the Coyote into a real anti-ship missile.




mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 6:21:49 PM)

I spent some timing follow up on this.

Used a AOE with Sparrows removed and an older block A. The CIWS and decoys did pretty better against singles but not so good against salvos(which is how it should be. Do you have the rest of that log handy. I'd like to see what exactly you did.

I understand you're logic but its a very fast sea skimmer (so the detect times even with Aegis could be less) and I'm not sure the impact would be as great as you think. Willing to do the homework though if you're willing to reciprocate.

BTW anybody do the math on speed vs. horizon. There could be something very obvious here.

Mike




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 6:31:48 PM)

Thanks for looking into it Mike, I appreciate it.

Here's a copy of the log, I was just playing the scenario I made and had run out of missiles near the end. The ship was 90 degrees to the threat to maximize any gun systems ability to try and defend.

Let me know how else I could help.

After looking through the entire log, I see a few things that are sort of strange, it seems the Chinese ships see my stealthy LRAMS better than my Aegis does their missiles, as the Aegis doesn't see anything much past 20nm.

quote:

2/20/2014 6:30:49 PM - China: New contact! Designated VAMPIRE #36 - Detected by Type 052D Luyang III [172 Kunming] [Sensors: China Type 517H-1 Knife Rest] at 123deg - 45.2NM


quote:

2/20/2014 6:29:17 PM - USN: New contact! Designated VAMPIRE #13 - Detected by DDG 96 Bainbridge [Arleigh Burke Flight IIA] [Sensors: AN/SPY-1D(V) MFR] at 296deg - 20.5NM
I believe this was a P-270 Moskit or Sunburn missile.

quote:

2/20/2014 6:29:32 PM - USN: New contact! Designated VAMPIRE #14 - Detected by DDG 96 Bainbridge [Arleigh Burke Flight IIA] [Sensors: AN/SPY-1D(V) MFR] at 305deg - 17.4NM


My Nulka systems never seem to activate either, and I put in extra deception chaff on the ship instead of IR flares, expecting a heavily radar dependent anti-ship missile threat.




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 7:10:55 PM)

I decided to upload the scenario that created the log in the post above. Hopefully it will help.


Two of the Chinese ships simply don't show up on ESM, I don't know if that's intended, as they are set to have all radars on.

To test the scenario, you can just turn on the Bainbridge's Radars and ECM, and speed up time to watch the engagements, or lob a few LRASM's at the 4 ESM contacts.





mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 7:17:10 PM)

Thanks. D is looking at this issue now as well.

Mike




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/22/2014 7:18:55 PM)

Really appreciate it Mike and the rest of the team.

If you head northwest with the Bainbridge in the scenario above, you'll run into the two Chinese Type 052's.




mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/23/2014 12:31:41 AM)

Logged.

Just marking this for our tracking!

Mike




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/23/2014 6:27:19 PM)

Understood.

Found more public info regarding countering simultaneous arriving threats and supersonic maneuvering AShCM's and Phalanx.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6958850/Phalanx-Block-1B

It's from Raytheon and dated from 2000.

From the brochure on page 8:

quote:

All the Benefits/Feature of Block 1A
All Elevations
Sub-sonic/Super-sonic
High G Maneuvering,


quote:

The Phalanx CIWS is the ONLY CIWS System to Destroy a Supersonic, Maneuvering Target


Page 11 shows double the hit count and extended range because of the much higher weapon accuracy.

Page 12 shows comparison with various Phalanx Blocks and number of hits at range vs. various target types.

Page 16 shows Diving Vandal supersonic targets and High G Maneuvering ASCM and Diving ASCM and views through the Phalanx Thermal imager, as well as pitting the Phalanx against Mach 2+ ASCM targets.

Page 17 shows when the Phalanx opened fire at what range on the Vandal target. (Looks like 12,000 feet slant) First projectile hit at about 6,000 feet, target track broken off at 5,171 feet and target destroyed at 4,676 feet. Vandal diving at 29.98 degrees and moving 2,675 ft/sec, which at altitude is over Mach 2.7 I think. RF sees it at about 30,000 feet downrange and 18,000 feet altitude, IR sees it at around 20,000 feet downrange and 13,000 feet altitude.

Page 26 mentions Operational Evaluation Results recommended Range increase to 4,000 yards, or 3.6km, or about 2nm but system exceeded all performance requirements during live testing.

Page 19 showcases how the target tracks are filled in for the Phalanx when it's integrated with the SPS-49, SLQ-32, SPS-67 plus it's own systems to create a complete target picture.

Also mention that it handles more threats in a given time frame.


I found it interesting the rounds used to defeat the threat, the idea being to simply make enough holes in the ASCM to render it uncontrollable instead of breaking it into pieces that could continue on toward the ship at high speed.

Hope this helps, now if I could only find this kind of data for the other CIWS systems.




Dimitris -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/23/2014 7:13:30 PM)

Thanks. Added a sanity check for such excessive reductions in Build 549.




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/23/2014 7:15:45 PM)

Thanks for the hard work, and patience with me.




mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/23/2014 10:01:49 PM)

Tested tonight its up to 45% which s probably about right.

Mike




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/23/2014 10:44:29 PM)

It's definately better than 1%, thank you :D

Given the data here though on page 12: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6958850/Phalanx-Block-1B

I'd still like to see it's hit chance up to about 70% against that type of threat. ECM and other support assets would lower that percentage but according to the chart showing Block 1B range and number of hits on a supersonic High-G maneuvering missile, the Block 1B shows a significant amount of hits at half it's maximum range on that type of target, which increases as the missile gets closer, it's well above even the Block 1A in accuracy going by the chart.





Feltan -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/24/2014 12:01:53 AM)

Unless and until there is real field data against threats, I think the upgraded 45% PoH is probably realistic if not a tad generous.

I appreciate the homework done by AlmightyTallest. We can argue matters of fact not matters of opinion. However, the facts here are presented by the defense contractor who made the system. There is absolutely no reason to doubt their sincerity, but they also have a great motivation to put the best possible spin on things. There is nary a defense system in the field, as good as some of them are, that can reproduce results that are obtained during the sterile and near-perfect conditions of the test range.

Remember, the people actually using and maintaining the equipment in the field/at sea are not generally Master of Computer Science candidates who wrote the code and know it inside and out; they are not technicians who can build the system from scratch with all the parts lying in a pile. Rather, your operator and maintainer are generally well meaning 19-22 year old volunteers with variable motivations and generally adequate training. Some of them will be very good indeed, some -- not so much.

From grim experience, if a part can be installed backwards or upside down it likely will be at some point.

Regards,
Feltan




mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/24/2014 12:26:07 AM)

Strike that it as 47% for the 1B. My first test was with the A.

Interesting pdf. We'll definitely take a look and discuss but any other changes will have to wait for more research and post 1.04.

Thanks!

Mike




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/24/2014 12:38:29 AM)

quote:

From grim experience, if a part can be installed backwards or upside down it likely will be at some point.


LOL, well said, and point taken. Sometimes parts get installed backwards at the site of manufacture too you know. [;)]

But I was under the impression that for the purposes of CMANO, all systems are modeled as working correctly and properly maintained, the only factors that change the manufacturer specs and speculation of how systems work in the sim is the interaction with ECM, AI skill level, etc. For public consumption we really only have the manufacturer specs to go by.

Thanks for the info Mike, it's definately a big improvement, and I look forward to playing it out in the new build. That pdf is probably the most detailed public info your going to find on the Phalanx.

Thanks again guys for the fixes and adjustments.




mikmykWS -> RE: Low 1% Pk with Phalanx Block IB (6/24/2014 12:45:29 AM)

Appreciate the effort. We moved a step ahead which is what really counts. Will pick up on this later to see if there are more to take.

Thanks!

Mike




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125