UK navy Upgraded Phalanx Gatling gun Weapon system to destroy enemies in the air and sea in seconds
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 11. 2023
- The UK's Royal navy Upgraded Phalanx Gatling gun Weapon system be able to destroy enemies in the air and sea, Nearly £18m will be pumped into the Royal Navy’s Phalanx Gatling guns to keep pace with the latest threats
- Jak na to + styl
Following the sinking of HMS Coventry during the Falklands conflict, the then PM of the UK, Margaret Thatcher, said that no future Royal Navy vessel should go to sea if unable to defend itself, so these days, with the Phalanx being a regular fitting to RN ships, it just seems a shame that the two new aircraft carriers, considering their size, only have three each. It's okay to plan on a fleet defense for a carrier, but what happens if the escorting ships get attacked, and they have to defend themselves?
I just wrote almost the same thing then read your post. Totally agree, it seems negligent to me what they have done to protect the carriers. They should have missles too, like the US Air craft carrier with quad launchers for Sea sparrow missles and a RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile.
Good question, however what I appreciate most is the fact that whilst you may or may not be a fan of hers you call the lady Margaret Thatcher and not just Thatcher which I think is awfully rude like it's an insult or slur in my opinion one of this islands Greatest leaders we've ever had who only took us to war to defend our own or owned soil, thanks again.
@@user-sf2kw9qp9q British are not afraid of mocking US Presidents and protesting, why should anyone show respect to a British PM
I think she was a great leader, one of the best PMs this country had ever had. I would never address her by only her surname, but I would not address her as her Lady either, as at the time of the Falklands War, she had not been given that title. I like to phrase my comments in the time setting that the comments were made for.@@user-sf2kw9qp9q
@@karmakazi101 President Trump will go down in history as top 15 Presidents the USA has ever had. He for sure was the best President since Reagan. Trump just hurt people's feelings because he spoke the truth. He called out Europe for spending so little on your militaries, buying energy from Russia ect. People don't like hearing the Truth. Imagine how different the war in Ukraine would be going if the EU had uniformly increased their military spending to 4% GDP?
Well the good thing about the phalanx system is that its independent from the other ship systems. Unless its hit directly it will keep working even if the bridge and/or other sensors and radars are destroyed.
Introducing the frickan laser phalanx.
Makes sense. They should be able to come up with something that could work within a 2 km range.
@JamesLaserpimpWalsh I went to school with one of your family members. You know chemical Lasers are powerful but they are FUCKING TOO BIG
It would be a far better to go with the SeaRam system upgrade as the USN has done, which incidentally was originally a RN requirement. The invincible class ships were fitted with Goalkeeper not Phalanx.
Wouldn't Phalanx be better at defending against a swarm attack then the rolling airframe missile?
phalanx is cheaper to run and if they continue to work on it will be much better against all drones
@@solodragoon exactly, which is why the RN has not upgraded, but still leaves RN ships vulnerable, due to the very limited range of phalanx, and one target at a time.
@@paulhill1665 As far as I can tell phalanx is suppose to be the very last line of defence so range wise that would be right for it, tho end of the day guess it depends on the ship if its a frigate they should have air defence missles on board......but things like the carriers dont.
@@solodragoon the short range is why the USN had modified many of them to SeaRam, they still use the original Gun system, but more for small boats and possibly drones. Three missiles coming towards a ship, from the same bearing, Phalanx will get the first, it may have a chance with the second, but a third? The further away you can take down an incoming missile,the better. It is a good system, the range is its issue. The RN should follow the USN, and have both, but the beancounters say no.
If the situation warrants its use, just make sure the system is ON. Case in point, the USS. Stark.
Hope this has a manual override and a good angle of depression. Would be good against small armed boats and inflatables.
In defence matters, £18mn cannot be described as "poured in" or whatever extravagant tern was used!
The RN fielded Phalanx in Basra and often fired "in anger" against incoming rockets, massively effective
Was this OE update or one instigated by the UK😊
The Japanese Navy seems to use more Phalanx than the US Navy. The Japanese ships look more well defended.
They learn from their history
They are an island nation. Of course they would have a powerful navy .
@@JamesLaserpimpWalsh Huh? I never said they shouldn't have a powerful Navy. I just wondered why they have more CIWS per ship than the US Navy.
What has that got to do with this and who gives a toss about the US or Japanese navies?
@@timphillips9954 Here.....I'll give you some training in reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. The topic of this video is the Phalanx Gatling gun. So I asked a simple question regarding the Gatling gun's use in the US and Japanese Navies. Of course you could have gone back to your eighth grade books to refresh your memory.
The prodigous use of a river of bullets means that ammunition capacity is a limiting factor. Phalanx propaganda always pictures a single target engagement and not an overwhelming multi-target scenario that would soon empty the guts of any Phalanx. Its a one target at a time weapon. Can they be installed as a pair interlinked for mutual support?
Good
Big deal have you seen ak630k2 ? Crushed this easily . Whilst we at it you seen Russias live fire sea exercise ? That’s not a Sheffield hit , that’s a nothing survives hit with with no way of being stopped .
I remember once reading that during the testing of the new Phalanx system at sea that it was tracking outgoing 5 inch shells and occasionally shooting at them. I don't know how true that is.
There were several incidents with phalanx systems. Its not easy to tell an autonomous defense system that has an extremely crucial job what and what not to shoot and under which circumstances. During desert storm in 91 there a british ship in escort of one US Battleship had its phalanx system continuously blast a chaff/flare cloud popped by the Battleship while they were under missile attack.
@@TheDude50447 You would think that the design engineers would have considered integrating the thing with all the systems on the ship, like chaff and flares and such.
@@rael5469 I dont know. But in this case it was another ships phalanx shooting the battleships chaff cloud.
@@TheDude50447 Interesting. Thanks.
Not really how seriously the British really take CIWs systems. The HMS Queen Elizabeth only has 3 Phalanx CIWS for defense. Very light on protection as compared to most air craft carriers. I realize people say other platforms will protect the Elizabeth, but in war things seldom goes as planned.
In the Falklands, did Invincible ever fire it's Sea Dart missiles..doubtful, and deemed unnecessary.
@@franzmenzies5268 The British had 6 ships sunk during the Falklands War.
You are such a whinging git.
Can the safety systems be overridden if the Phalanx decides unilaterally that it does not have a clear field of fire? Will it hesitate to fire under certain circumstances? A clear field of fire means an abscence of supporting escorts around an aircraft carrier for instance - not a likely scenario. I think a real naval conflict will produce a few unwelcome surprises as to the built-in constraints of this defensive weapon.
A good reference would be the operations of the Sea Wolf missiles in the Falklands conflict whose software had more emphasis on health and safety than killing the enemy.
As for the line of sight question, that was an issue with the sinking of the HMS Coventry, as it was deployed alongside the HMS Broadsword, to the north of the Falklands Islands. They both had Sea Dart missiles on board, but due to their close proximity to land and the mountainous terrain, they both struggled to get a missile lock. During the attack, the Broadsword had a lock on an incoming Argentinian plane, but the Coventry crossed its line of sight, so it could not fire. Subsequently, the Coventry was hit and sunk. Maybe a Phalanx would have been a more effective close-up weapon. As for your point of a carrier escort group, unlike the US Navy that has lots of ships to deploy for an escort, RN carriers would prob only have one Type 45 destroyer and a Type 23 frigate, along with a submarine lurking nearby, but they will never confirm that. So were hostile to hit just two ships, the carriers may be on their own.
Why are there no missle defences to compliment the phalanx? And yes i know the carrier is accompanied by a battle group but still could do with a more comprehensive self defensive sweet.
Suite is the word, and probably missiles on a carrier are deemed unnecessary given it is an offensive platform typically escorted, and there are space and costs considerations. In short, it's aircraft must defend it, or ditch in the sea. An all round battle wagon it is not.
Just carry some man pads like stingers maybe?
Lasers should be able to take over phallanx' duties. I can't see lasers being much use beyond one or two kilometres so as a close in weapons system it should be able to work. Also there is no bullet drop to calculate with a laser.
Honestly I felt being scammed by insignificant detail of upgrade
Falkland Islands. Only one 's' in the lot. Juvenile.
I believe that the Russian navy has been using a similar weapon to some effect against Ukrainian drones.
Theirs are 30mm I think. Their ships are so packed with weapons and ammo you would have to work hard to find a spot that WOULDN'T create a huge explosion.