7 ms·

It's a radar directed gun. The dome thing is the radar. Once, a sailor was on top of one and the radar turned on, and it cooked the sailor. That radar has some

It's a radar directed gun. The dome thing is the radar. Once, a sailor was on top of one and the radar turned on, and it cooked the sailor. That radar has some real power. The Phalanx motto is "it flies, it dies". It has an autonomous function. Turn it on, and it kills anything in its airspace. However, that's never turned on. WAY too dangerous, there's always a man in the loop. There's two primary challenges for the Phalanx, also known as the CIWS (though this often pronounced "see whiz"). The first is finding the target in the first place, notably a sea skimming missile, picking it out of the surface clutter. The second is that, once identified, determining that its actually destroyed the target in a timely fashion so as to not keep pumping bullets into a flying debris field. The system uses the radar to track both the target and the stream of bullets. So, to the radar system, all of the bullets are "tracers" to help the system direct the fire into the target. Another issue with the Phalanx is that it's not armored, and the possibility of it getting hit by the shrapnel of the missile it took out, is not zero. Unlikely, depending on trajectories, but not zero. The missile may not explode, but it's still a bunch of metal hurtling at several hundred miles per hour. While designed for the naval environment, the machines have also been deployed, and used in combat, mounted on trailers to be used in forward land positions as point defense against missiles, low flying aircraft, and even artillery shells. The CIWS was recently used to down a Houthi missile in the conflict currently happening in the Red Sea.

chasil 3y ago
Would the Phalanx have stopped a barrage of Neptune missiles, which were reported to have sunk the Moskva? Was the defensive weaponry on the Moskva unable to defend against the Neptune, or did the crew make mistakes in operating it?
- whartung 3y ago
  Conceptually, yes, the CIWS could have been effective against the missile the struck the Moskva. The US had a similar incident, back in '87, with the frigate USS Stark. It was struck by two Exocet missiles launched by an Iraqi fighter during the Iran-Iraq war. The Stark was in international waters, and the attack was unprovoked. Bluntly, the ship was not expecting the attack, and was unprepared for it. While it was equipped with the CIWS, it was in standby mode. Also, the Stark mounted a single unit in the center of the ship, facing aft. As I recall the missiles actually struck the forward quarter of the ship. Even if the CIWS was enabled, I believe they would have had to turn the ship for it to engage the missiles. As for the Moskva, let me qualify I have no support whatsoever for what Russia is doing. That said, I do have a base level of respect for fighting forces, and the people who staff them and stand the line. I was shocked to hear about the Moskva. There's no reason those missiles should have struck that ship. That ship is particularly designed, much like our cruisers, to defeat threats such as those missiles. For the US Navy, a prime role for our cruisers is to defend not just themselves, but a fleet role. In simple terms, the cruisers are there to protect the carriers, and are bristling with systems and sensors designed for that task from several threats. The Moskva was similar to that role. The CIWS is the "last resort". The CIWS is for when missiles penetrate the other layers of defenses in place, including things like the combat air patrol, air-to-air missiles, etc. The CIWS is a "last mile" defense. The Moskva had layers as well. It should have taken several missiles to penetrate what the Moskva could have utilized. Obviously, being in the West, I do not hear flattering things about the Russian forces, their state of readiness, training, morale, etc., etc. Based on that knowledge, and the fact that the Moskva was lost, it's clear to me that that ship should not have been where it was. Here was a high level ship of war, in a war zone, not as a spectator, but as a participant, and it was not ready for that attack. That ship and her crew were not qualified to be there, not prepared to be there, and those service people deserved better. The Russian navy failed that crew, and they should not have been in harms way like that. The Ukrainian attack should have failed utterly. It shouldn't have even been close. The Stark was very embarrassing, and there are many critics of the modern US Navy. The Stark, however, was completely surprised, they weren't a combatant, they weren't posturing, the Stark was in the area. The Moskva should not have been surprised. They clearly did not anticipate the attack (as I understand it, everyone was surprised the Ukrainians had this capability), but it's not really clear if the ship was prepared and capable even if they did. There's stories that even after it was struck, the crew did not perform well and contributed to the loss of the ship.
  - kilolima 3y ago
    So in your opinion the sinking of the Moskva does not herald the end of surface sea power (within land-based defense range) in the missile age?
    - whartung 3y ago
      No, just like the aircraft or aircraft carrier did not end surface sea power. It certainly changed the game, however. We've been "in the missile age" since the 60s. Well demonstrated during the Falklands campaign with the loss of the HMS Sheffield to an air launched Exocet missile in '82. Mind, what killed that ship was fire (started by the missile, the missile also took out the main fire fighting system) and, again, the ship was not as prepared as it should have been to defend against the attack. Two missiles were launched, one missed. The Phalanx came out in '78. The Navy has been working the missile problem for a long, long time. In the 80's the nightmare scenario was several dozen Backfire bombers launching several hundred missiles at the fleet from long range. Later, it was missile patrol boats. Now its drones. Warfare is ever evolving. Tanks aren't dead yet either, despite drone and Javelins. But the land (and water) scape is ever shifting.
- dilyevsky 3y ago
  It should’ve had a ciws system. Probably older kashtan—m (there’s a newer panstir-m system). My guess it was either inoperable or switched off
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  IIRC Moskva was partly broken.
- adrr 3y ago
  Rumor was CIWS wasn’t working on the Moskva. Also some of radars interfered with each other so they kept some of them off. That was inferred off of pictures from the sinking and the radar used to detect sea skimming threats was in the stow position. There is also more countermeasures than ciws. Warships also can deploy decoys and chaff to confuse radar homing missiles.
  - chasil 3y ago
    If ciws was not operable, then why was the Moskva positioned within range of the Neptunes?
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      I think the answer to that question can probably be applied to most of the Russian war effort.
- jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
  So this category of weapon is called a Close In Weapon System. Moskva had 6 of these, the main russian CIWS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 It also had 40 short range surface to air missiles. No one knows the exact details of the strike, but it's been suggested that Ukraine used a drone as a diversion. Another speculation is that in photos of the ship after the attack, the main search radar is in the downward, stowed position. This may suggest it wasn't on at the time of the strike, or it may have been moved as part of damage control. All that said, incompetence has been a consistent theme with the Russian military in this war, and in particular with their black sea fleet. Ukraine has had repeated success attacking with small unmanned surface craft, basically Ski-Doo style boats they've modified for remote piloting using a thermal camera and Viasat, and with a bunch of explosives. There's video footage from these attacks on twitter and such, and while it's very unclear, in some of them it appears there's no watch standing on the ship being attacked, or they're shooting at it using small arms rather than the CIWS. None of this is definitive, but it is all consistent with poor training, apathy, and incompetence on the part of the crews.
  - Tuna-Fish 3y ago
    The last readiness inspection document of the Moskva was leaked. To put it short, none of the defensive weaponry was working properly, none of it had worked properly for a decade, and no-one was doing anything about it.
- MilStdJunkie 3y ago
  In short, Moskva no worky. From the 10 February 2022 readiness report – Four of six generators needed repair; two were emergency use only. – S-300F Fort [SA-N-6] director illuminator nonfunctional – Both Osa-MA [SA-N-4] directors nonfunctional – One AK-630 Gatling guns nonfunctional; others unable to load without manual process. – All (3) MR-123 directors for AK-630 limited function. Before we get all cocksure of ourselves over here on the USN side, we should probably stop to consider how incredibly down readiness rates have been on our own surface fleet. Between the dysfunctional surface fleet culture, the GWoT madness, government shutdowns, and a complete inability to find sailors who know how to work a mouse, the manpower problem is also, now, beyond critical. Wasn't too long ago we were apparently ramming everything with a navigation light and a destination somewhere in SEA. It's not unrealistic to see a Moskva in our own future, if we're not careful (and maybe stop drinking our own Rah-Rah-USA-Always-Wins koolaid).
- numpad0 3y ago
  In American AEGIS systems, the main AN/SPY-* radar would detect the missiles at distance and surface-to-air missiles would be fired at them. If failed, CIWS systems such as this Phalanx, SeaRAM, Goalkeeper, AK-630... would be activated, and hopefully it autonomously notices incoming supersonic object and engages it. These systems aren't designed to be left on all the time just in case, but has to be put into standby mode at the beginning of a combat and un-leashed as needed. Moskva wasn't paying attention to the situation and all these equipment were visibly in stored, powered down state in leaked photos. Among suspected reasons were that the sailors were lazy, the Neptune was technically out of engagement range but upper atmospheric phenomenon allowed acquisition by luck, therefore the ship wasn't expecting it, etc.
xarope 3y ago
I do enjoy the visuals from the TV series The Expanse, when they use their CIWS equivalent to intercept missiles. Albeit I've always wonders how fast those "bullets" fly, versus the (again I'd assume) hypersonic (is sonic meaningless as a benchmark when talking about space?) missiles.
- georgeecollins 3y ago
  Yes, sonic is meaningless as a benchmark in space. The speed of sound varies with air pressure (altitude) but it is always an important barrier in a gas atmosphere. However, in space it means nothing. A bullet fired into a gravitational well could just keep accelerating until it struck something or went into an orbit.
  - echoangle 3y ago
    Speed of sound is not affected by pressure, only by temperature. It’s still variably with altitude though because the temperature is dependent on altitude in the atmosphere.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      TIL!
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        At those speeds, the two are probably the same anyway.
- numpad0 3y ago
  Apparently "hypersonic missiles" translates to "maneuverable anti-ship ballistic missile" in plain English. It's different from conventional cruise missiles in the sense that pocket Windows computers aren't phones.
sliken 3y ago
Story I heard about the Phalanx is that it detected and fired on a kite. Split it in two with a short burst. Then two more bursts as it cut the two pieces in half. An engineer commented on the radar tracking it's own bullets and that the 8th bullet has it's aim improved by the tracking of the first bullet.

chasil 3y ago

Would the Phalanx have stopped a barrage of Neptune missiles, which were reported to have sunk the Moskva? Was the defensive weaponry on the Moskva unable to defend against the Neptune, or did the crew make mistakes in operating it?

whartung 3y ago
Conceptually, yes, the CIWS could have been effective against the missile the struck the Moskva. The US had a similar incident, back in '87, with the frigate USS Stark. It was struck by two Exocet missiles launched by an Iraqi fighter during the Iran-Iraq war. The Stark was in international waters, and the attack was unprovoked. Bluntly, the ship was not expecting the attack, and was unprepared for it. While it was equipped with the CIWS, it was in standby mode. Also, the Stark mounted a single unit in the center of the ship, facing aft. As I recall the missiles actually struck the forward quarter of the ship. Even if the CIWS was enabled, I believe they would have had to turn the ship for it to engage the missiles. As for the Moskva, let me qualify I have no support whatsoever for what Russia is doing. That said, I do have a base level of respect for fighting forces, and the people who staff them and stand the line. I was shocked to hear about the Moskva. There's no reason those missiles should have struck that ship. That ship is particularly designed, much like our cruisers, to defeat threats such as those missiles. For the US Navy, a prime role for our cruisers is to defend not just themselves, but a fleet role. In simple terms, the cruisers are there to protect the carriers, and are bristling with systems and sensors designed for that task from several threats. The Moskva was similar to that role. The CIWS is the "last resort". The CIWS is for when missiles penetrate the other layers of defenses in place, including things like the combat air patrol, air-to-air missiles, etc. The CIWS is a "last mile" defense. The Moskva had layers as well. It should have taken several missiles to penetrate what the Moskva could have utilized. Obviously, being in the West, I do not hear flattering things about the Russian forces, their state of readiness, training, morale, etc., etc. Based on that knowledge, and the fact that the Moskva was lost, it's clear to me that that ship should not have been where it was. Here was a high level ship of war, in a war zone, not as a spectator, but as a participant, and it was not ready for that attack. That ship and her crew were not qualified to be there, not prepared to be there, and those service people deserved better. The Russian navy failed that crew, and they should not have been in harms way like that. The Ukrainian attack should have failed utterly. It shouldn't have even been close. The Stark was very embarrassing, and there are many critics of the modern US Navy. The Stark, however, was completely surprised, they weren't a combatant, they weren't posturing, the Stark was in the area. The Moskva should not have been surprised. They clearly did not anticipate the attack (as I understand it, everyone was surprised the Ukrainians had this capability), but it's not really clear if the ship was prepared and capable even if they did. There's stories that even after it was struck, the crew did not perform well and contributed to the loss of the ship.
- kilolima 3y ago
  So in your opinion the sinking of the Moskva does not herald the end of surface sea power (within land-based defense range) in the missile age?
  - whartung 3y ago
    No, just like the aircraft or aircraft carrier did not end surface sea power. It certainly changed the game, however. We've been "in the missile age" since the 60s. Well demonstrated during the Falklands campaign with the loss of the HMS Sheffield to an air launched Exocet missile in '82. Mind, what killed that ship was fire (started by the missile, the missile also took out the main fire fighting system) and, again, the ship was not as prepared as it should have been to defend against the attack. Two missiles were launched, one missed. The Phalanx came out in '78. The Navy has been working the missile problem for a long, long time. In the 80's the nightmare scenario was several dozen Backfire bombers launching several hundred missiles at the fleet from long range. Later, it was missile patrol boats. Now its drones. Warfare is ever evolving. Tanks aren't dead yet either, despite drone and Javelins. But the land (and water) scape is ever shifting.
dilyevsky 3y ago
It should’ve had a ciws system. Probably older kashtan—m (there’s a newer panstir-m system). My guess it was either inoperable or switched off
actionfromafar 3y ago
IIRC Moskva was partly broken.
adrr 3y ago
Rumor was CIWS wasn’t working on the Moskva. Also some of radars interfered with each other so they kept some of them off. That was inferred off of pictures from the sinking and the radar used to detect sea skimming threats was in the stow position. There is also more countermeasures than ciws. Warships also can deploy decoys and chaff to confuse radar homing missiles.
- chasil 3y ago
  If ciws was not operable, then why was the Moskva positioned within range of the Neptunes?
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    I think the answer to that question can probably be applied to most of the Russian war effort.
jasonwatkinspdx 3y ago
So this category of weapon is called a Close In Weapon System. Moskva had 6 of these, the main russian CIWS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 It also had 40 short range surface to air missiles. No one knows the exact details of the strike, but it's been suggested that Ukraine used a drone as a diversion. Another speculation is that in photos of the ship after the attack, the main search radar is in the downward, stowed position. This may suggest it wasn't on at the time of the strike, or it may have been moved as part of damage control. All that said, incompetence has been a consistent theme with the Russian military in this war, and in particular with their black sea fleet. Ukraine has had repeated success attacking with small unmanned surface craft, basically Ski-Doo style boats they've modified for remote piloting using a thermal camera and Viasat, and with a bunch of explosives. There's video footage from these attacks on twitter and such, and while it's very unclear, in some of them it appears there's no watch standing on the ship being attacked, or they're shooting at it using small arms rather than the CIWS. None of this is definitive, but it is all consistent with poor training, apathy, and incompetence on the part of the crews.
- Tuna-Fish 3y ago
  The last readiness inspection document of the Moskva was leaked. To put it short, none of the defensive weaponry was working properly, none of it had worked properly for a decade, and no-one was doing anything about it.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
In short, Moskva no worky. From the 10 February 2022 readiness report – Four of six generators needed repair; two were emergency use only. – S-300F Fort [SA-N-6] director illuminator nonfunctional – Both Osa-MA [SA-N-4] directors nonfunctional – One AK-630 Gatling guns nonfunctional; others unable to load without manual process. – All (3) MR-123 directors for AK-630 limited function. Before we get all cocksure of ourselves over here on the USN side, we should probably stop to consider how incredibly down readiness rates have been on our own surface fleet. Between the dysfunctional surface fleet culture, the GWoT madness, government shutdowns, and a complete inability to find sailors who know how to work a mouse, the manpower problem is also, now, beyond critical. Wasn't too long ago we were apparently ramming everything with a navigation light and a destination somewhere in SEA. It's not unrealistic to see a Moskva in our own future, if we're not careful (and maybe stop drinking our own Rah-Rah-USA-Always-Wins koolaid).
numpad0 3y ago
In American AEGIS systems, the main AN/SPY-* radar would detect the missiles at distance and surface-to-air missiles would be fired at them. If failed, CIWS systems such as this Phalanx, SeaRAM, Goalkeeper, AK-630... would be activated, and hopefully it autonomously notices incoming supersonic object and engages it. These systems aren't designed to be left on all the time just in case, but has to be put into standby mode at the beginning of a combat and un-leashed as needed. Moskva wasn't paying attention to the situation and all these equipment were visibly in stored, powered down state in leaked photos. Among suspected reasons were that the sailors were lazy, the Neptune was technically out of engagement range but upper atmospheric phenomenon allowed acquisition by luck, therefore the ship wasn't expecting it, etc.

xarope 3y ago

I do enjoy the visuals from the TV series The Expanse, when they use their CIWS equivalent to intercept missiles. Albeit I've always wonders how fast those "bullets" fly, versus the (again I'd assume) hypersonic (is sonic meaningless as a benchmark when talking about space?) missiles.

georgeecollins 3y ago
Yes, sonic is meaningless as a benchmark in space. The speed of sound varies with air pressure (altitude) but it is always an important barrier in a gas atmosphere. However, in space it means nothing. A bullet fired into a gravitational well could just keep accelerating until it struck something or went into an orbit.
- echoangle 3y ago
  Speed of sound is not affected by pressure, only by temperature. It’s still variably with altitude though because the temperature is dependent on altitude in the atmosphere.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    TIL!
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      At those speeds, the two are probably the same anyway.
numpad0 3y ago
Apparently "hypersonic missiles" translates to "maneuverable anti-ship ballistic missile" in plain English. It's different from conventional cruise missiles in the sense that pocket Windows computers aren't phones.

sliken 3y ago

Story I heard about the Phalanx is that it detected and fired on a kite. Split it in two with a short burst. Then two more bursts as it cut the two pieces in half. An engineer commented on the radar tracking it's own bullets and that the 8th bullet has it's aim improved by the tracking of the first bullet.