Talk:Phalanx CIWS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Weaponry task force

Contents 1 Rate of fire 2 Tick mark on photo 3 Friendly fire incident 4 "Last line of defense" 5 SeaRAM 6 Nuke the fiction section? 7 CIWS 8 Royal Navy 9 "The gun mount moves at a very high speed and with great precision"

[edit] Rate of fire

Ok, so they fire 4500 rounds per minute, but they only hold 1500 rounds in their clip, that means they can only fire for less than half a second before having to "reload"? Or do they have some kind of ammo hold that automatically feeds into the gun? --Rain 22:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that would be 20 seconds worth of fire. If you look at the Goalkeeper CIWS page, there is more helpful information. It probably takes only a few seconds of fire to destroy the target. Noisy | Talk 23:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tick mark on photo

The ciws on the Missouri has a broken missle tick on it. Did it shoot down one of the two Iraqi silkworms fired in it's vacinity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.65.168 (talk • contribs) November 4, 2005.

Perhaps it got partial credit for the kill?

This is a a very amazing and useful weapon, but it _does_ have the dubious distinction of being one of the few systems that has killed more users than it has saved, as a number of maintenance personell have been crushed while working on an unsecured weapon. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Hazel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.75.23 (talk • contribs) June 9, 2006.

Killed more users? I'd like to see the source for that statement. --Dual Freq 22:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly fire incident

Though I'm not specifically familiar with this incident, it seems unlikely that Phalanx would fire at a deployed Chaff cloud. Chaff is launched from what is basically a rocket launcher. This projectile, containing chaff, must be propelled away from the ship where it explodes hopefully luring the missile away. It seems that from this source the CIWS fired at the rocket after it launched and before the chaff deployed. A 5 inch rocket heading toward the Jarrett at that range would seem to be worth shooting at. Yes, it's friendly fire, but it seems like Phalanx was only doing what it was supposed to do. Without seeing an official report, perhaps the weapon fired at the rocket until it either no longer met engagement criteria (wasn't a threat to the Jarrett), or until the rocket deployed its chaff with some of the Phalanx rounds following a ballistic trajectory and hitting the Missouri. The way the article and its source are worded, it implies that CIWS malfunctioned, and fired at the [deployed] Chaff. I'd say it did what it was supposed to, but it resulted in an unintended consequence. --Dual Freq 22:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Last line of defense"

This phrase is used an awful lot in this article. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit to be less repetitive? Viper007Bond 10:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SeaRAM

Should there be a mention of SeaRAM in this article? The system is made using a Phalanx frame, radar and other components, and I believe it is Navy policy that it will replace the gun-based CIWS in most applications. --Warphammer 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuke the fiction section?

The CIWS has no major fictional appearances. The section is an IMDB listing of its nominal appearances in films. I say let's delete the whole thing as non-notable. --Mmx1 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of fiction sections in general. The one on this page is very large and basically useless. I've dealt with these sections before, they are hard to get rid of because everyone wants to add their favorite Anime feature, model airplane, GI Joe toy or some such thing to the list. The R2D2 thing in the lead paragraph bothers me a bit too. I bet the only ones who call it R2D2 are mess cooks or non-navy folks who have no idea what it really is. I never heard it called R2D2, but that's only my informed opinion. I'd say if it has a real nick name it would be CWIS, pronounced sea-whiz. Dual Freq 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's frequently referred to not as "R2D2" but "R2D2 with a hard-on" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.222.108 (talk • contribs) .

Yep, operations and supply department might call it that, but not Combat systems and not the Firecontrolman who maintain the system. Dual Freq 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuked the fiction; not sure about R2D2. No experience in the Navy, but I have heard it often on the civilian side. May just be an apocryphal story. --Mmx1 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember it being frequently called that, while in I was in the Navy, but I never served on a ship with the system. I agree that R2D2 should not appear in the first paragraph. It may hve been called that to point it out easily from a distance, the white and the shape would stick out a lot (espeically on the battleships), and a quick reference rather than describing the shape. Plus that was a good quick reference when they started appearing on the ships in the early 1980's. --Wfoj2 23:00 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIWS

Isn't this a very maintenance intensive system? (and other similiar systems) Any verifiable source on this. --Wfoj2 23:00 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Navy

Currently fitted to Royal Navy ships according to Janes: eight Type 42s, the auxiliary oiler-replenishment vessels RFA Fort Victoria and RFA Fort George, the landing platform helicopter HMS Ocean and the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. 81.86.144.210 07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The gun mount moves at a very high speed and with great precision"

how encyclopaedic --Leladax 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)