Literally. A CIWS like the Phalanx will use a 500 rnd burst to create a cloud that is passed by a helicopter-sized target 50% of the time at 1500 m. Meanwhile cannons such as the 76 mm have downed all sorts of stuff, drones included.
>>61986530Because missiles are better than either of them (excepting magazine depth) and CIWS takes up less space than a cannon does.
>>61986539A single RIM-116 costs 998,000 $ and the whole system itself is pretty big. A Phalanx will burn through 8,000 $ of ammo without a single kill. Meanwhile an OTO (2,000 $ per shot) will shoot down a missile/drone with just 3 - 6 shots at a longer effective range that both RIM and Phalanx for lesser cost
>>61986530The much lighter CWIS can rapidly switch targets making it the best option for defense, it's also much smaller and lighter which is good for any defensive system as it's a secondary role for any ship.CWIS are being replaced by missiles these days which will be better against fast AShM's but shit against drone swarms due to limited ammo ready to fire.Long term proximity fused CWIS might be the best of both worlds allowing kills at longer range while also reducing rounds per kill on drones.
>>61986756>A single RIM-116 costs 998,000 $That's really cheap for what it is. Also RAM can engage multiple targets simultaneously, gun-based CIWS can only engage one at a time and needs to physically rotate to engage the next. Also this entire thread is retarded, all these systems are part of a layered defense that provides room for error. The USS Gravely would've got clapped by a Houthi chinkworm or something a few months ago if it wasn't for the Phalanx CIWS you deride.
>>61986530but they use both.inherent in the venerable 5" gun is that it can be and is used for anti-air and anti-missile work
>>61986876The Phalanx has a faster traverse rate (115°/s) compared to the OTO (60°/s) but the OTO has 10 times more range. It actually has double the range of the RIM-116
>>61987051I'm not deriding the Phalanx, I just think it's a lot of ammo for little results and high costs (and a 1 mile effective range). I just think we have better systems now.The OTO for example, has about 10 times more range than the Phalanx and twice the range as the RIM-116 for 1/500th of the cost of a missile (998,000 $ / 2,000 $). Average was 3 - 10 rounds per target, so about 20k$ at worse?
>>61987213Good thing they have all three and don't have to choose like some poor nigger then.
What if you just used mutiple weapons systems in conjunction with each other because they have diffrent capabilitys im sure nobody has thought of that.
>>61986756>Meanwhile an OTO (2,000 $ per shot) will shoot down a missile/drone with just 3 - 6 shots at a longer effective range that both RIMNope. Oto melara themselves advertise that max range vs subsonic missile is 6km (and undoubtedly this range is against non maneuvering target), and system can intercept wave of 4 missiles. RIM theoretically can intercept 20 missiles.
We all know laser will win the day in the end
