phlanx and goal keeper are CIWS systems re read what i said i aimed at a specific type cause CIWS could also include sea dart seawolf missile systems.

pro russian yes but thats because aprocal your so blatently ignorant to the f**king obvious, your pro american so either way niether wins.

i know weapon systems i know unit types and capibilities i know what the russians can and cannot do sorry for the crimson tide quote felt the need :D (btw in 10 years i could be in command of my own ship)

russian equivelent to phlanx and goal keeper is the AK series of CIWS could have ment these or any other number of systems by saying CIWS and phlanx i specified a specific type.



as for america it can be defeated your navy embarrasingly was hit wasnt it USS Cole 2000 no big powerful mighty ships involved just the cole a sad state to see them people die because some stupid belief.

elait incident showed us no matter how big the ship it can be sunk by smaller faster more agile craft packing weapons of far less capibility.

just because america has a large navy doesnt mean she is undefeated same with russia china france everyone america will one day fall on its arse as every country has done, almost happend once it will happen again in fact america is on the verge of it now.

Three pages of discussion to be summed up below:

captcav: Battleships can carry lots of weapons. We should use them.

TLAM: I agree.

Apocal: I think the program is needless drain on the budget, as we have more capable and efficient ships in production.

Kaptain: Russia big. Russia strong. Grrrrr.

allieluya <<< is that how you spell it ?

Hallelujah

Yeah that's because Raytheon has to differentiate its system from things like Phalanx and Goalkeeper, because CIWS has become synonomous with rotary-cannon style point defence systems, despite the fact that you can use missiles for the same purpose. It's marketing, man.

I've seen RAM referred to as CIWS in publications and have also seen it briefed as such, because that's what it is. I don't think it deals too well with asymmetric threats, though, so I'm not sure why the RAM system is completely replacing Phalanx on some US units. Block 1B Phalanx can effectively deal with small surface targets - it's called the "Jetty Sweeper" in the Canadian Navy. I think the only real disadvantge compared to Goalkeeper, now, is the fact it still has to be reloaded seperately as opposed to a continuous feed system.

But I'm not an ASuW/AAW guy so I only get my stuff from eavesdropping. Take it as you will.

Long post short, Seasparrow and ESSM are taking up the asymmetric threat where Block 1B isn't available. The Navy can't afford redunant weapon systems and when you have something that is capable against a small boat at a mile and something capable against the same at at many times greater the range... well the choice isn't a hard one to make.

No, that was a British system called "Oboe" used in Pathfinder Force units.

To the best of my knowledge the Luftwaffe never developed guidance systems for their bomber forces. Perhaps you are thinking of the coordination between German landbased radar and their night-fighters and flak units. :hmm:

i think i might be i know there was something and something else with something in between something so probably