Someone's in trouble!

[Graham]

Turning innocent folks into shark food always have reprucsussions.

Given the cost of the average nuclear powered aircraft carrier, I'm sure the US Government & US Navy would rather take the heat about accidently turning a few civilians into shark food rather than losing one of their very expensive ships, not to mention all the sailors, airmen and aircraft aboard.

Graham

[Lynx7725]

Given the cost of the average nuclear powered aircraft carrier, I'm sure the US Government & US Navy would rather take the heat about accidently turning a few civilians into shark food rather than losing one of their very expensive ships, not to mention all the sailors, airmen and aircraft aboard.

Graham

I know. But you can't just consider the potential human cost to yourself. The international backlash from incidents like that can be rather painful in the long run too.

At any rate, that's a bit too political already.

Come to think of it, even the bow wake of a USN Nimitz class would probably swamp and sink a dhow. Doesn't even need a direct hit.

[KingNor]

Given the cost of the average nuclear powered aircraft carrier, I'm sure the US Government & US Navy would rather take the heat about accidently turning a few civilians into shark food rather than losing one of their very expensive ships, not to mention all the sailors, airmen and aircraft aboard.

Graham

I know. But you can't just consider the potential human cost to yourself. The international backlash from incidents like that can be rather painful in the long run too.

At any rate, that's a bit too political already.

Come to think of it, even the bow wake of a USN Nimitz class would probably swamp and sink a dhow. Doesn't even need a direct hit.

personally, i'd be just fine with it if other countrys told their mariners in their little peice of junk fisher boats to stay the hell away from our big american ships, it just so happens that we americans know everyone hates us, and we're not about to let some tool in a dingy full of dinamite blow up our expencive ships if we can help it.

maybe, just maybe, their fisher boat can wait 3 minutes while the carrier goes by, rather than trying to snake in front of it, or run along side...

just a thought.

seriously though, one accendental collision means international outrage, while the US helping with forign floods, famine, fires, and any other dozens of crisis gets maybe a tiny blurp on page 26 of the paper.

its not fair.

[Skull Leader]

Well, let's be honest with ourselves here for a moment. There are only a couple of other nations in the world that field boats even close to as large as what the US is floating right now (the UK, Russia, and maybe one or two others). We have these sort of incidents off our own coasts often enough, everyone (around here) is supposed to know the rules of the water, and generally know well enough to stay away from US warships under power. When other nations get involved however, they often see it as "American Supremecy" or some such bullshit (not always, but this often happens, and it'll likely pop up in this case also). They fail to understand that the navy is indescriminate... they don't intend for these things to happen, but they sometimes do. ANY time you put a boat with such a large displacement (I.E. an aircraft carrier) anywhere close to commercial maritime lanes, accidents WILL happen.

[Skull Leader]

PPS---Actually, I bet it could stop pretty quickly, in a crash stop. Which is probably even worse for the ship than making a tight turn. And probably result in MANY injured sailors. Anyone know if most US carriers can "close the rudders" to help stop? (Turning them in opposite directions towards each other to "close off" the area between the skegs---massive rudder damage, but will greatly improve stopping distance)

I'm not really a sailor, and I know a damn sight less about Aircraft carriers from the Forrestal class-up, but I was under the impression that rudders were built to work in tandem? Wouldn't you have to break something in order to get them working independently?

[Hurricane29]

Hey David, I think I saw the show where you got that pic from, wasn't it the sea trial of one of the new carriers. I think that it had to make turns like that for a long time, first one way, then immediately the other. It also had to go backwards for about 72 hours.

[Skull Leader]

err, she's not exactly a new carrier. The boat in the picture is the U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68) and she's been at sea longer than most of us have been alive.

P.S., I think she's in for repairs/refitting right now, anyone know for sure?

[Knight26]

Ok, I've been gone three or four days and people start talking about ships defensive weapons and not ask me, hello people that is my job. In reference to Graham's question, yes Phalanx can engage slow moving and surface targets using the block 1B upgrade. This upgrade is only now entering the fleet though. RAM Mod-3 can do the same thing too now, and the Ike is the first ship to get the new install of it, while the LHD class ships are getting the upgrades over the next two or three years followed by the Mod-1 carriers. FFGs will recieve SeaRAM which is RAM with the Phalanx 1B radar and IR suite but with an 11 cell missile guide instead of the 21 cell guide on all other models. The Nimitz is in home port right now for normal refit and repair, I'll be down there next month for some DTE exercises.

SOmething else to consider, if I read the article correctly the dhow is a small wooden boat, similar to a chinese junk. And, the incident occured at night. Guess what folks, wood does not appear on radar and does not appear well on sonar either. So, if the boat was running with its lights out and there was little to no moon there is no way that anyone from the JFKs pilot house could have seen it unless they had on NVGs or IR gear. That is one of the reasons why passive IR detection is becoming such a big thing on all the ship self defense systems now, even NATO-Rearc.

Well I am on vacation and my nephew just got up so I have to go. I've sure I'll read the naval message regarding this incident when I go home and exchange a few e-mails with the ram-techs onboard, though I doubt the launchers could have been damaged by any flying debris from the Dhow but you never know.

[JB0]

Why evil? I'd have thought that a stream of 20mm shells at 6,000 rounds per minute, would be a pretty effective way of stopping a small craft filled with terrorist suicide bombers who were intent on blowing up your aircraft carrier from getting too close.

Graham

Well, when I first read it, for a moment I thought you were proposing the should've shot the fishing boat out of the water instead of running over it...

[Skull Leader]

lol, that boat would've come apart in NO time under that kind of fire....

[David Hingtgen]

Hey, I said ask Knight26 like 6 posts ago...

PS--small update from Navy: http://news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=14451

PPS--you can never have too many pics of aircraft carriers:

Edited July 26, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[the white drew carey]

Hey, I said ask Knight26 like 6 posts ago...

PS--small update from Navy: http://news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=14451

PPS--you can never have too many pics of aircraft carriers:

p.s.- Thanks for the link.

p.p.s.- True.

p.p.p.s.- Regardless of how difficult a dhow is to spot, the carrier still hit it, and that means that no one on board knew it was there, and that means that if the dhow was manned by terrorists (which could still be the case, they just screwed up and didn't get a chance to do what they wanted to do), it could've set off explosives very near the ship.

I call that a failure to maintain perimeter security.

C'mon- The ships got 5,000 crew on board! I think it can spare a 10 or 15 to sit on the leading edges and look for small objects!!!

[renegadeleader1]

no one on the carrier is at fault. if anything it would be the fault of the screening ships that escort the carrier.

[the white drew carey]

no one on the carrier is at fault. if anything it would be the fault of the screening ships that escort the carrier.

I partially disagree. Think of it this way:

Football game: QB gets sacked. Who's fault is it?

Answer, the whole team's fault. Sure, the guy should've never gotten through, but the QB should still be paying attention, too.

Edited July 27, 2004 by the white drew carey

[David Hingtgen]

Which one's that? Nimitz class, but can't tell past that. (Other than it's not the Reagan). The one I just posted is the Stennis, you can just see the numbers on the flightdeck.

[renegadeleader1]

no one on the carrier is at fault. if anything it would be the fault of the screening ships that escort the carrier.

I partially disagree. Think of it this way:

Football game: QB gets sacked. Who's fault is it?

Answer, the whole team's fault. Sure, the guy should've never gotten through, but the QB should still be paying attention, too.

yes but what if the QB has his back to the LB and is in the process of throwing the ball(I.E. launching or retrieving aircraft) remember this carrier was in the middle of an op.

[the white drew carey]

David- I'm unsure. I grabbed it from the gallery at fas.org.

RenegadeLeader1- I understand your point, but the aircraft carrier wasn't rammed from behind by the dhow (although that would be a humorous sight to see ).

[Knight26]

Sorry DH, I must have missed that post, read the thread right after I woke up from partying last night with old friends. They will never find the crew members of that Dhow, they're chum. They would have been pulled under the carrier and then caught up in the screws. I'm surprised anyone even noticed they hit somehting, though the sound of hitting the boat was probably pretty noticable when it happened.

Also like I said before, if it was a dark moonless night, and the dhow had no lights on I doubt anyone would have seen it. There are watchstanders who stand at the bow of the ship to look for small boat threats, but if the Dhow had its sails pulled and and there were no lights then they probably did not see it until it was too late.

So in typical naby fashion the two poor shmucks taking watch at the time will likely be the one who get in trouble and get court martialed. Its sad but true but the little guy will get screwed long before anyone officer, except maybe the OOD, who will get a slap on the wrist.

[Coota0]

Nevermind

Edited July 27, 2004 by Coota0

[Graham]

Knight26, just curious, how many Phalanx guns does a US carrier have? Doesn't seem like many from the pics maybe 2? I sure miss the warships of WWII that were bristling with guns from every nuck and cranny. I would have thought that something as valuable as a carrier would have at least 6 to 8 Phalanx with interlocking fields of fire in case of a malfunctioning or damaged gun. I suppose like anything budget plays a part in the number and type of defensive systems as well.

Also, are any US Navy ships using the 30mm Goalkeeper system? Seems to be a better alternative to Phalanx, with heavier, long range shells = better at knocking missiles/planes out of the air at longer range.

I did read once that the Phalanx fires solid shells rather than HE, as a solid shell may actually swat a missile out of the air or divert it's course enough to miss the target, whereas a proximity detonating HE round may only damage the missile, but not actually stop the missile or remaining parts of the missile travelling forward on momentum and still reaching the target. Is this true?

Graham

[Skull Leader]

Which one's that?  Nimitz class, but can't tell past that.  (Other than it's not the Reagan).  The one I just posted is the Stennis, you can just see the numbers on the flightdeck.

given the age of the photo, I'm guessing either the Nimitz or the IKE

Edited July 27, 2004 by Skull Leader

[Knight26]

Graham-

Most Carriers, have 4 Phalanx guns and 2 or 4 Nato Launchers. RAM typically replaces one Phalanx and one NATO launcher. The Reagan is solely a NATO/RAM ship, plus the fifty cals. All weapons have interlocking fields of fire, and the missile systems have shoot around the corner capability. Goalkeeper is not going onto any US ship, Goalkeeper right now is strictly a european weapon system, americans have too much invested in th 20mm Vulcan to go away from it at this time.

Phalanx typically fires a Deplete Uraniam Sabot round, shreds missiles nicely. When dealing with ASMs (Anti Ship Missiles) which are usually seaskimmers it does not take much to knock them out of the sky. SOmething people need to realize is that missiles only rarely strike its target they just get within kill range, explode and pepper the target with shrapnel, tearing it apart, even aircraft. When dealing with Seaskimming missiles that are inbound at Mach 2 plus typically it does not take much force to knock them into the water. Even diving targets just need to get a glancing blow that damages their control surfaces to send them tumbling out of control. I've grown up around missiles so I know alot things that most people don't realize. Also, of all the test firings I have been witnessed or seen the results of for RAM have only had about a dozen rounds that did not make a skin to skin hit of the target.

[Graham]

Phalanx typically fires a Deplete Uraniam Sabot round, shreds missiles nicely.

Heh, I bet the environmentalists get their panties in a twist about the DU rounds poisoning the little fishes

Graham

[Knight26]

Most of them are too stupid to know about it, plus many are not going to tungston rounds.

[Graham]

Most Carriers, have 4 Phalanx guns and 2 or 4 Nato Launchers.  RAM typically replaces one Phalanx and one NATO launcher.

Er...what's RAM? I presume you are talking about some sort of launcher and not Radar Absorbent Material?

And what's a NATO Launcher? Something for getting rid of those pesk NATO allies when they don't agree with US policy? Sort of like one of those cannons they use at the circus for shooting out the human cannon ball.......simply load in any NATO ally that is being troublesome and fire him overboard

Sorry for the ignorance, but I'm not as up on ship defensive systems as I am on aircraft and smallarms.

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Umm, RAM is the missile Knight26 works on, the CIWS Phalanx replacement. Yes, it's a missile so fast and accurate and awesome it'll replace bullets...

*R*olling *A*irframe *M*issile. It spins for stability (thus, rolling airframe). Thus needs fewer fins etc. I'm sure Knight26 has WAY better photos than I, so I won't post any.

NATO launcher=Sea Sparrow launcher. AKA newer version of BPDMS, Basic Point Defense Missile System.

BPDMS=Sparrows in a Mk25 launcher. Looks like an ASROC launcher.

NATO=Sparrows in a Mk29 launcher. Rather unique, 2 sets of 4 boxes, separated by a space.

Edited July 27, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Knight26]

Thanks DH, sorry I did not clarify that before.

RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) is based off of the Sidewinder and stinger missiles and fires out of a launcher that borrows elements from Phalanx, Trident, and a few other systems. THe biggest failing of Phalanx is its high fire rate, becuase it makes it have only enough ammo for 5-6 shots. Were it more accurate that would not be a problem, but Phalanx works by putting out a hail of ammo such that one of the rounds will hit the incoming missile.

NATO Launcher, like DH said is the NATO Sea Sparrow Launcher, a development off the of the old BPDMS and AIM-7 Sparrow missile for use in ship defense, it is a long to mid range ship defender. It carries eight rounds per launcher and typically fires one or two rounds per target. RAM has 21 rounds per launcher and typically fires two rounds at each target, just in case.

AN interesting little side note, a while back Nanashi posted an info sheet on something labelled the missile phalanx on the Prometheous. When you really get down to it RAM is a missile based Phalanx weapons system instead of a gun based, kind of funny, especially since the picture he showed also looked a little like a RAM Launcher. What makes this doubly interesting is that RAM had only started development and the launcher design was no where near set at that point.

[Graham]

THe biggest failing of Phalanx is its high fire rate, becuase it makes it have only enough ammo for 5-6 shots.

So little, I'm surprised. I would have thought the Phalanx would have a huge magazine capacity, compared to when the Vulcan gun is installed in a fighter jet, given that there should be far less space restictions on a battleship compared with sticking the same gun in a fighter.

If it's not classified, can you tell me what is the magazine capacity of the Phalanx and how many rounds on average are fired in a single burst?

Graham

[the white drew carey]

Phalanx info

Specifically:

Type of Fire: 3,000 rounds per minute - Later models: 4,500 rounds/min (starting 1988 production, Pneumatic Gun Drive)

Magazine Capacity: 989 rounds - Later models: 1,550 rounds