"Phalanx" opens the battle account. 45 years after its appearance

75
"Phalanx" opens the battle account. 45 years after its appearance

Yes, it happens: developed in the 60s of the last century, put into serial production in 1978 and put into service in 1980, the Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS anti-aircraft artillery system or simply “Phalanx” recently won its first official victory.

It would seem, what is wrong with this event? Well, a gun. Well, with radar. Well, she shot down an anti-ship missile on approach to the ship. Everything is as it should be, isn't it? In fact, everything is much deeper than it seems at first glance.



The fighting that unfolded between the Yemeni (also called the Houthis) and the American military in the Red Sea proves that the Phalanx close-in combat system works, and works quite effectively. However, then the second question arises: how effective are the long-range defense systems on American ships, now that the last line of defense system is in use?

However, it is in order.

In general, it is worth noting that the development of shipborne air defense systems has proceeded quite smoothly since its inception.

During the First World War, these were ordinary machine guns and guns that were installed on ships and taught to shoot at the upper sector.


The sighting devices left much to be desired, but given that the targets were airplanes and airships whose speed did not exceed 200 km/h, Maxim’s machine guns, together with Lander’s cannons, more or less coped with their tasks.


During World War II, a typical US Navy warship might have a dozen or more 40mm Bofors guns and even more 20mm Oerlikons.

The Giering-class destroyer, which formed the basis fleet wartime destroyers, was equipped with six 127 mm guns, 12 40 mm Bofors automatic guns and 11 20 mm Oerlikons.


The task of the calculations was as simple as possible: to shoot a large amount of ammunition into the sky in order to create an insurmountable space for aircraft from stern to bow.

It turned out, let's say, differently. The anti-aircraft gunners of the destroyer Aaron Ward (third) succeeded, but somehow the crews of the battleship Yamato did not succeed.

Radar and automation changed all that. With radar, a single artillery system with a computer brain can detect multiple targets, calculate their distance, speed and direction, and precisely destroy threats in order of priority. This promised to free up tons of space on warships, with one such weapon performed the work of more than 20 World War II guns.


Of course, there were certain changes. Anti-aircraft installations, both missile and artillery, and missile and artillery began to be installed not on the sides and on the bridges, but along the axis of the ship, in order to ensure the largest possible sector of fire.

Here's a video of the Phalanx on the amphibious assault ship USS Germantown using a Marine Harrier jet as a targeting target.


What can be said about a system about which everything or almost everything has been said? The Mk-15 Phalanx is an M61A1 Gatling system, the same six-barrel cannon found on the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters, mated to a Ku-band radar and computerized fire control system. Naturally, the Phalanx has changed its electronic components more than once over almost half a century, this is understandable. And remote control was improved.

The system works like this: after the weapon is activated from the ship's combat information center, it automatically begins scanning the sky for incoming airborne threats. The system is fully automated: the need to combine radar and ballistic data and accurately fire on the target just a few seconds before impact with the ship eliminates human intervention. Only a computer can react fast enough.

As the Phalanx's radar begins to detect incoming missiles, it prioritizes the first six missiles at a range of 5,58 miles. The Phalanx automatically engages incoming threats at a range of 9 km, sending a hail of 20mm shells towards the incoming missile. The M61A1 has a rate of fire of 4500 rounds per minute and can carry 1500 rounds of ammunition with a tungsten or depleted uranium core. The ammunition is enough for 20 seconds of shooting. According to calculations, the “Phalanx” should fire for about 1-2 seconds per battle.


There are, of course, such cases as with the frigate Stark.


Why, you ask, if the Phalanx is such a gorgeous weapon? And it’s simple: on May 17, 1987, the crew of the frigate saw the Iraqi Mirage, they assumed that the plane posed a threat, and a combat alert was sounded on the ship. But the anti-aircraft missile control post of the frigate Stark reported that the Mk 92 fire control station of the Phalanx complex could not detect the target, since the ship’s superstructures “shaded” the bow heading angles from which the aircraft was approaching. According to Navy instructions, in such cases the ship should turn away from its course at an angle of up to 90°, but the Stark continued to follow its previous course.

As a result, Stark received two Exocet missiles on board, one of which, fortunately, did not explode. 37 crew members were killed, who then had to fight for survivability in full.


The Phalanx's first real kill occurred in 1996, but it was a situation where things didn't quite go as planned.


The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer Yugiri, participating in an air defense firing exercise, somehow inexplicably pointed its Phalanx at a US Navy A-6 Intruder bomber that was towing a target. A-6 was shot down, fortunately, the crew escaped safely.

And finally, the most recent developments: last week, a complete naval battle broke out in the Red Sea, during which the US Navy destroyer Gravely successfully fought off four Houthi anti-ship missiles. And the last, fourth missile was shot down less than a mile from the ship.


In general, the Yemeni guys have tried to attack warships before, but their missiles were shot down by the coalition’s naval missile defense systems long before they could even theoretically hit the ships of Britain and the United States.

But time passed, the Houthis gained combat experience, paying, in general, not with the most modern missiles. And as the coalition forces stretched and the ships' ammunition was used up, the missiles began to fly closer and closer.

And while the crew of the destroyer Gravely fought off the missiles that were flying at it with all their might, and fought back successfully, the Houthis planted a fifth missile on the side of a British cargo ship, which the destroyer was supposed to guard.

On the one hand, this is a victory for the Phalanx, which in almost 40 years of service has not committed a single combat defeat of a target. This is generally good because the system is the last line of defense for Navy ships. Typically, US Navy warships have three or more air defense ranges.

The outer radius consists of the Aegis combat system complete with SM-2 and SM-6 air defense missiles.
The next range is the Evolved Sea Sparrow, and in some cases the 127mm Universal Artillery System.
The third radius is the Phalanx, as well as the SEWIP jamming component and the MK 53 Nulka decoy launch system.


In general, US Navy destroyers have participated in battles before, but this is the first time that an anti-ship missile penetrated to the third air defense radius.

What's next?

It is not easy to draw conclusions. We really don't know what happened in detail, and how it happened that the Houthi anti-ship missiles came close to the destroyer. Did the long-range missiles miss? Did the ship's radar detect them too late?

In general, on the one hand, we now know that the Phalanx can indeed destroy an anti-ship missile, but on the other hand, the two defensive radii of American destroyers are not ideal.

This is undoubtedly useful information both for those who will try to break through the defenses of American ships in the future, and for those who rely on protection. Including the last line of defense - the Phalanx.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    February 11 2024
    Well done, they shot down. Of course, a lot depends on the actual combat situation, and each case of using attack and repulse means is individual. But this is a subsonic missile from the 70s, which was shot down by a complex from the 70s. How would the Phalanx cope with supersonic missiles or subsonic anti-ship missiles of the latest generation. That is the question?
    1. +15
      February 11 2024
      Kina will not be.
      Roman, re-upload the video
      1. +3
        February 11 2024
        At the current stage, the most reliable method is a simultaneous attack with a large number of missiles.
        The Palestinians have proven that they overload any, even the most advanced, defense.
        In relation to a single ship, also attack from different sides with low-flying missiles. Choose the launch time so that they arrive at the same time. With modern communications this is not difficult.
    2. +4
      February 11 2024
      But this is a subsonic missile from the 70s, which was shot down by a complex from the 70s.

      Where did you get information about the rocket, if it's not a secret?
      They wrote at VO that the rocket was supersonic, and the Americans also wrote about it. In testing conditions, the Phalanx shot down supersonic missiles at speeds above 2M.
      1. Alf
        0
        February 11 2024
        Quote from solar
        In testing conditions, the Phalanx shot down supersonic missiles at speeds above 2M.

        That's exactly what
        Quote from solar
        In field conditions
        ...In reality it usually happens somewhat differently. In the early 80s they wrote with delight that the AN-64 helicopter could destroy 8 tanks in one flight.
        1. +4
          February 12 2024
          I know the difference between field testing and real world use.
          Both the VO and the Americans wrote that the downed missile was supersonic.
          Field tests confirm that this message does not contradict the theoretical capabilities of the Phalanx.
          There will be more detailed data about this case - it will be interesting to read.
          1. Alf
            +1
            February 12 2024
            Quote from solar
            I know the difference between field testing and real world use.
            Both the VO and the Americans wrote that the downed missile was supersonic.
            Field tests confirm that this message does not contradict the theoretical capabilities of the Phalanx.
            There will be more detailed data about this case - it will be interesting to read.

            I won’t argue, anything is possible.
          2. kig
            +1
            February 17 2024
            Quote from solar
            Both the VO and the Americans wrote that the downed missile was supersonic.

            Where exactly did VO write about this? As for the Americans, they, on the contrary, doubt that it was supersonic. The arguments are as follows: judging by the distance, if it were supersonic, its fragments would almost certainly reach the destroyer,
        2. +2
          February 17 2024
          AK can also hit 30 enemies with one magazine. For unknown reasons, however, approximately 20,000 rounds of ammunition are spent on defeating one infantryman. Combat statistics, no doubt about it. wink
      2. 0
        February 12 2024
        By the way, your control system is interesting, without a feedback loop for the position of the gun
        1. +1
          February 12 2024
          In Phalanx, the trajectory of projectiles is estimated by radar. However, I’m not sure that this works with TV aiming either.
    3. +1
      February 11 2024
      Clearly, this System cannot stop a modern anti-ship missile in any way. If it were Zircon or Bastion, this Destroyer would have sunk safely along with its crew.
    4. +1
      February 13 2024
      What is needed is not modern missiles, but at the same time a dozen outdated subsonic ones + a couple of dozen decoys = empty ammunition. If we are talking about a country like Yemen. Alternatively, the rocket should go under water.
  2. +28
    February 11 2024
    Let's better write about "Moscow". There’s no point in inventing fairy tales about the amers with their grandfather’s shotguns.
    1. +14
      February 11 2024
      Quote: Reklastik
      Let's better write about "Moscow". There’s no point in inventing fairy tales about the amers with their grandfather’s shotguns.

      And in general about similar means in the Black Sea Fleet, and their ability to repel attacks by “ex-brothers” (except for DShK in manual mode).
      1. -1
        February 17 2024
        DShK? What do you think of the AK-630? By the way, 30 mm will be worse than 20 mm Phalanx ...
        1. +1
          February 19 2024
          By the way, 30 mm will be worse than 20 mm Phalanx..
          did it help Moscow?
    2. +5
      February 11 2024
      Quote: Reklastik
      Let's better write about "Moscow".
      Do you want to put it under the article?
    3. +2
      February 11 2024
      What about Moscow? There is no official information whether this was an external influence or sabotage on the ship. Are you familiar with the results of the investigation? Share.
      1. +4
        February 11 2024
        Are you familiar with the results of the investigation? Share.
        - no, I don’t know. But it seems that you are hinting at your knowledge of this issue? Very interesting. Tell us!
        1. 0
          February 17 2024
          No, not at all. Perhaps the results of the official investigation will become known to a wide circle.
      2. 0
        February 20 2024
        In light of recent events, the phrase “official information” has become synonymous with the word for which people are banned.
  3. +18
    February 11 2024
    Well, in general, the Phalanx worked on land, in Afghanistan and Iraq, so this is not the first combat success, although it is undoubtedly at sea.
    As a result, Stark received two Exocet missiles on board, one of which, fortunately, did not explode.

    Do you mean "luckily"? It's a pity, of course!
    1. +4
      February 11 2024
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Well, in general, the Phalanx worked on land, in Afghanistan and Iraq,

      Maybe "Vulcan" (simply "Vulcan")?
      1. +7
        February 11 2024
        Quote: mark1
        Maybe "Vulcan"?

        So he is Vulcan and Phalanx
        Mark 15 Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
        And also Centurion
        Centurion C-RAM is a land modification of the widely used American naval anti-aircraft artillery system Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS. The abbreviation C-RAM stands for: Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortars
        1. +1
          February 11 2024
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          So he is Vulcan and Phalanx

          This means that he is behind the times (or has forgotten) - eh-he-he...
  4. +6
    February 11 2024
    Phalanx automatically hits incoming threats within 9 km

    Why, just round it up to 10...miles, leagues...
    1. 0
      February 12 2024
      Quote: Tlauicol
      Phalanx automatically hits incoming threats within 9 km

      Why, just round it up to 10...miles, leagues...

      The author indicated in the article firing range Phalanx. This does not mean at all that at this range it actually shoots down air targets. The effective firing range (75% probability) of the Mk15 is 1,47 km. In principle, at this range he hit the anti-ship missiles. It is not known for certain whether it was a supersonic anti-ship missile or an Iranian variation of the Chinese-made subsonic S-82, copied by whales from our P-15M.
      1. +2
        February 12 2024
        The author wrote that the phalanx “automatically hits” targets from 9 km.
        Ps. 5500 maximum range. This is not some kind of Bofors Dardo
        1. +2
          February 12 2024
          Quote: Tlauicol
          The author wrote that the phalanx “automatically hits” targets from 9 km.
          Ps. 5500 maximum range. This is not some kind of Bofors Dardo

          The author is mistaken. This happens if you haven’t personally twisted the barrels. When I was young, I had to, though in the 630s. Was a controller during the shooting. Until you pass the “materiel part” and memorize the MAS (measures of safety, conditions of fulfillment), you will not be allowed to shoot. Under the Soviets (77-81) this was strict. That's why there was a result.
          AHA.
    2. 0
      February 17 2024
      Actually, the Phalanx shoots at 1470 meters. 20 mm projectile, small.
  5. -6
    February 11 2024
    Penguins know how to wrap shit in a candy wrapper! And if the phalanx had failed, and in the end they had been shot down with sabers, then the hype would have been all over the world.
    1. +4
      February 11 2024
      In fact, the rocket flew by at a distance of a mile from the ship.
  6. -2
    February 11 2024
    In general, on the one hand, we now know that the Phalanx can actually destroy an anti-ship missile,

    Seriously discuss information from the American information dump? However! According to the Ukrainian, every day they shoot down Russian missiles even more than were fired.
  7. +4
    February 11 2024
    Our military experts often made fun of the Phalanx - probably mostly of its appearance. The view is really funny.
    1. +6
      February 11 2024
      robot r2 d2 got overexcited
    2. +7
      February 11 2024
      In general, this is one of the first (if not the first) almost completely autonomous combat module.
  8. -1
    February 11 2024
    Thanks for the article, Roman.
  9. +6
    February 11 2024
    Interesting article. And without unnecessary ridicule.
    Thank you!
    1. 0
      February 17 2024
      But with exaggerations. What is one “9 km range” worth...
  10. +10
    February 11 2024
    Roman, please monitor the quality of the text. Convert units of measurement into ones we understand (SI, for example):
    ... coupled with Ku-band radar
    – this is the centimeter range.
    ...priority to the first six missiles at a range of 5,58 miles. Phalanx automatically hits approaching threats within 9 km,
    – straight in a row (!) miles and km are mixed. Miles have no place here at all, with the possible exception of nautical miles.

    The same applies to the use of the Latin alphabet. I don’t mind at all, I like to see the original, but this cocktail of this and that hurts the eye:
    Eventually "Stark"received two missiles on board Exocet


    An important word is missing here. And I'm not being picky, I really didn't understand:
    In general, the Yemeni guys have tried to attack warships before, but their missiles were shot down by naval missile defense systems
    About that? Slow? Primitive?

    All questions are about the quality of the work, and not about the meaning of the article.
    1. +1
      February 11 2024
      ...priority to the first six missiles at a range of 5,58 miles. Phalanx automatically hits approaching threats within 9 km,
      – straight in a row (!) miles and km are mixed.

      5.58 * 1609.4 = 8980 m. That is, this is the same thing. And it really is some kind of hack.
      1. +5
        February 11 2024
        Quote: Maxim Davydov
        ...priority to the first six missiles at a range of 5,58 miles. Phalanx automatically hits approaching threats within 9 km,
        – straight in a row (!) miles and km are mixed.

        5.58 * 1609.4 = 8980 m. That is, this is the same thing. And it really is some kind of hack.

        I think nautical miles should be mentioned here - 1852 m.
        5,58 * 1852 = 10 m. And missiles cover 334 km, even subsonic ones, in no more than 1 seconds.
      2. 0
        February 12 2024
        some kind of hack.

        Hack in knowledge. A nautical mile is 1852 meters.
  11. +4
    February 11 2024
    And what good is it that he fought back? Who are we kicking for? They declare us an enemy, and here we are playing cards. We chew zopli. The Houthis are fighting this striped evil for us, and this must be understood.
  12. +5
    February 11 2024
    Quote: MBRBS
    Our military experts often made fun of the Phalanx - probably mostly of its appearance. The view is really funny.

    Our experts have screwed up a lot of things. The specialists are still...
  13. +5
    February 11 2024
    Quote: Orso
    Well done, they shot down. Of course, a lot depends on the actual combat situation, and each case of using attack and repulse means is individual. But this is a subsonic missile from the 70s, which was shot down by a complex from the 70s. How would the Phalanx cope with supersonic missiles or subsonic anti-ship missiles of the latest generation. That is the question?

    Therefore, it is necessary to supply the Houthis with more modern missiles. They, the Houthis, are fighting our enemy. They are fighting with those who shot down our Il. I don't understand why this hasn't been done yet. Chubais again?
    1. +6
      February 11 2024
      hmm, are you sure that in a few years “more modern missiles” will not be looking in your direction?
    2. 0
      February 12 2024
      Quote: Luenkov
      Therefore, it is necessary to supply the Houthis with more modern missiles. They, the Houthis, are fighting our enemy.

      We cannot do this directly for political reasons. But there is information (I can’t vouch for its authenticity - OBS) that:
      as he conveys Reuters agency, Hezbollah has Russian-made P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles - they are also export versions of the famous Onyx. The question is, how did they get to them in the first place?
      The thing is that at one time the group fought in Syria on the side of Bashar al-Assad. And around the same time I bought these complexes from him, so to speak, in reserve, because everything would be useful on the farm. Right now is the moment when it would be possible to fully express yourself.
      1. +1
        February 12 2024
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Quote: Luenkov
        Therefore, it is necessary to supply the Houthis with more modern missiles. They, the Houthis, are fighting our enemy.

        We cannot do this directly for political reasons. But there is information (I can’t vouch for its authenticity - OBS) that:
        as he conveys Reuters agency, Hezbollah has Russian-made P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles - they are also export versions of the famous Onyx. The question is, how did they get to them in the first place?
        The thing is that at one time the group fought in Syria on the side of Bashar al-Assad. And around the same time I bought these complexes from him, so to speak, in reserve, because everything would be useful on the farm. Right now is the moment when it would be possible to fully express yourself.

        But Reuters didn’t write what Hezbollah will do with these P-800s?
        1. 0
          February 13 2024
          Quote: Comet
          But Reuters didn’t write what Hezbollah will do with these P-800s?

          Apparently I didn't write it. Unfortunately, I don’t read English...
  14. +4
    February 11 2024
    tons of space
    A strange combination of mass and space.
  15. +1
    February 11 2024
    And to fight back kamikazes, this little thing is generally an irreplaceable thing
    1. 0
      February 12 2024
      she has a bk for 3 minutes of fire. 2 dozen Drones and he will shout: “empty - cover”! 21m will get a swollen forehead. at the end of the 20th century there was no such problem: UAVs
  16. +4
    February 11 2024
    In general, it is worth noting that the development of shipborne air defense systems has proceeded quite smoothly since its inception.

    During the First World War, these were ordinary machine guns and guns that were installed on ships and taught to shoot at the upper sector.

    The author is traditionally not good with technical issues. The photo below shows the first specialized anti-aircraft gun, the Krupp 37mm 37mm, on the deck of the Prussian corvette Nymphe, 1872.
    And in the first photo in the article it is not a “conventional gun” that was taught to shoot in the upper sector, but a Krupp specialized 7,7 cm FlaK L/27 developed in 1914.
  17. +5
    February 11 2024
    9km is a good joke. 9000 feet, actually about 3 km. The information needs to be processed more carefully.
    1. +1
      February 14 2024
      If the author had looked at least at the English-language Wikipedia when writing the article, he would have found out that (for the Mark 149-4 APDS cartridge):

      Maximum (ballistic) firing range 6000 yards (5500 m);
      Maximum effective firing range 1625 yards (1,486 m).

      If the author had dug even deeper, he would have found out that the manufacturer simply does not provide the characteristics of the shot at a distance of over 4000 m.

      However, there is the APDS Mark 244-0 ELC (Enhanced Lethality Cartridge) cartridge with a heavier (0,15 kg instead of 0,1 kg) “increased lethality” projectile.

      In conclusion, it can be noted that the C-RAM land ZAK uses M246 HEI-TSD or M940 MPT-SD cartridges (not used on Navy ships) for which the maximum effective firing range for targets such as mortar mines and MLRS is stated to be 2200 yards (2000 m).
  18. -2
    February 11 2024
    I see no reason to be delighted. If it had not been a homemade product made from guano and sticks, but something more substantial, the result could have been completely different. By the way, no explanation has yet been voiced as to why “Diamond” suddenly left the Red Sea. We had to urgently take “Rinda” from the AUG and drive it beyond three to nine lands.
    1. -2
      February 11 2024
      Quote: TermNachTER
      I see no reason to be delighted. If it had not been a homemade product made from guano and sticks, but something more substantial, the result could have been completely different. By the way, no explanation has yet been voiced as to why “Diamond” suddenly left the Red Sea. We had to urgently take “Rinda” from the AUG and drive it beyond three to nine lands.

      there are minuses - no answer, but there is a video in the cart https://t.me/namarshe/8149
      It seems they slapped USS Labon and an Englishwoman there, I already asked here, no one knows
  19. +14
    February 11 2024
    The author's latest fantasies
    The Phalanx automatically engages incoming threats at a range of 9 km, sending a hail of 20mm shells towards the incoming missile.

    How things really are:
    Effective firing range -
    1625 yd (1486 m)
    Maximum firing range -
    6000 yd (5500 m)
    Fire opens from a distance of 3500yd.
    And the proverbial 9 km is, most likely, the distance from which the CIWS search radar takes on a target for automatic tracking.
  20. 0
    February 11 2024
    Quote: george.old
    hmm, are you sure that in a few years “more modern missiles” will not be looking in your direction?

    I am sure that this time should not be given. We showed that we don’t want war, we withdrew our troops from Europe and came to us. So, pressed against the wall, there is no choice. You.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. +3
    February 11 2024
    It is necessary to separate how many kilometers the system’s radar sees and how many kilometers the gun itself shoots accurately.
  23. -1
    February 12 2024
    Quote: BoA KAA
    Quote: Luenkov
    Therefore, it is necessary to supply the Houthis with more modern missiles. They, the Houthis, are fighting our enemy.

    We cannot do this directly for political reasons. But there is information (I can’t vouch for its authenticity - OBS) that:
    as he conveys Reuters agency, Hezbollah has Russian-made P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles - they are also export versions of the famous Onyx. The question is, how did they get to them in the first place?
    The thing is that at one time the group fought in Syria on the side of Bashar al-Assad. And around the same time I bought these complexes from him, so to speak, in reserve, because everything would be useful on the farm. Right now is the moment when it would be possible to fully express yourself.

    A predator rarely attacks if and when it can get rebuffed. HERE is just such a case.
  24. +2
    February 12 2024
    It’s strange, but the indicated destroyer belongs to the 2a series, which does not have the Phalanx system....
    1. 0
      February 12 2024
      Quote: Efiop
      It’s strange, but the indicated destroyer belongs to the 2a series, which does not have the Phalanx system....

      One is on this destroyer.
    2. 0
      February 12 2024
      There is no front one, it is installed at the rear.
  25. +1
    February 12 2024
    As a result, Stark received two Exocet missiles on board, one of which, fortunately, did not explode.

    Roman, who are you for, the “Reds” or the “Blues”? Our man would write - "... very unfortunately, it did not explode"
  26. +1
    February 12 2024
    Yes, if our two AK-630Ms on the Ivanovets MRK had worked the same way as the Phalanxes on the Gravely destroyer, then probably the Nazi naval drones would not have had a chance to even get close to the ship. It is not clear whether our AK-630Ms do not have radar locking and aiming, or whether the radar does not see stealthy kamikaze drones? And in general, how did it happen that this attack came as a surprise to our RTO? As for other Black Sea Fleet ships that were lost forever?
    1. +1
      February 12 2024
      Quote: wladimirjankov
      Yes, if our two AK-630Ms on the Ivanovets MRK had worked the same way as the Phalanxes on the Gravely destroyer, then probably the Nazi naval drones would not have had a chance to even get close to the ship.

      Did the Phalanxes on the destroyer Gravely work on naval drones?
      1. 0
        February 14 2024
        During exercises, together with anti-boat 25 mm AU Mark 38, they do this regularly. Due to the characteristics of the projectiles and lower dispersion, the Mark 38 seems to be more effective when shooting at boats and boats:

      2. 0
        February 14 2024
        Did the Phalanxes on the destroyer "Gravely" work on sea drones?

        Nobody talked about this. I was actually talking about the effectiveness of using the Phalanx cannon complex. And if he coped with the low-flying missile system, then the naval drones would have suffered the same fate.
  27. +2
    February 12 2024
    Quote: wladimirjankov
    Yes, if our two AK-630Ms on the Ivanovets MRK had worked the same way as the Phalanxes on the Gravely destroyer, then probably the Nazi naval drones would not have had a chance to even get close to the ship. It is not clear whether our AK-630Ms do not have radar locking and aiming, or whether the radar does not see stealthy kamikaze drones? And in general, how did it happen that this attack came as a surprise to our RTO? As for other Black Sea Fleet ships that were lost forever?

    Elementary Watson! The reason for this is the secrecy regime. True, in our performance it rather resembles an ostrich with its head buried in the sand. After all, if you know that something is wrong, stupid questions arise:
    1. Who is to blame?
    2. What to do?
    And if everything is classified, there will be no questions. What the eye does not see, the soul does not hurt.
    Do you want examples? I have them. Submarine "She Drowned". Cruiser "Moscow". About 300 billion.
    The secrecy regime does not protect the secret from the enemy (because the bearers of the secret every now and then run to this very enemy for permanent residence or just to visit), but from the electorate. He hides (okay, okay, he tries to) the incompetence of management and protects hand-assers, bunglers and parasites from responsibility.
    1. +1
      February 14 2024
      And when did we have it differently?

      “Russia was not ready for war,” some said.

      - What's surprising here? - others answered them. — Has Russia ever been ready for anything? This is her natural state - to be constantly unprepared."
      V.S. Pikul, novel "Moonzund"

      “You demand that we replace Kozlov with someone like a Hindenburg. But you cannot help but know that we do not have Hindenburgs in reserve. Your affairs in Crimea are not complicated, and you could handle them yourself. If you used attack aircraft not for side business, but against the enemy's tanks and manpower, the enemy would not have broken through the front and the tanks would not have gotten through. You don't need to be Hindenburg to understand this simple thing, sitting for 2 months on the Crimean Front." Stalin I.V. telegram from L.Z. Mehlis, May 9, 1942. There were still 3 war years left before victory in the Great Patriotic War.

      For some reason, the intelligentsia believes that people in power are sent to Russia from another planet, and not recruited from its own ranks, and, shouting with all the passion of their souls, “from time immemorial” they have been fighting the Russian government.

      PS The conversation about the technological backwardness of the Russian fleet should begin not with August 12, 2000, but with the self-sinking on September 11, 1854 across the fairway of the Sevastopol Bay of "Sizopol", "Flora", "Uriel", "Three Saints", "Silistria", "Selafail" " and "Varna". This year the event will be 170 years old.
  28. 0
    February 14 2024
    How many kilometers away does he hit the target there?
  29. +1
    February 14 2024
    It seems that some kind of large landing ship was sunk again... It seems that the Black Sea naval commanders are generally unteachable.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"