Phalanx CIWS

[@formulah113]

you should get in touch with Raytheon and see if they can make a replica and include a display explaining their system.

[@deejayimm]

Great idea.

[@ThePhalanx2006]

They don’t use those panels anymore. They might have one lying around

[@matthewnewton8812]

Yes! That sounds like an infinitely better option than installing real world control panels and bullets for those things. I bet they would do it for less than wholesale value too- it’s part of the history of that company as much as it is part of the history of the country.

[@quentintin1]

@@matthewnewton8812 while they may have the control panels, i believe the CIWS on the museum ships are mostly just hollow shells and the M61 Vulcans are not in a firing state along with that a lot of cabling was cut so they are just looking to complete the displays and cabinets on the public tour

[@frackratsfenorki3689]

Probably be more cost effective to get a FC CIWS tech to explain what the console looked like and make one. The Block O Phalanx had a very rudimentary console and it looks absolutely nothing like the Block 1B of today. Even the Block 1 looks completely different.

[@ThePhalanx2006]

I was a CIWS Tech for 8 years. Pretty cool! The Control Panels that would be on New Jersey are no longer being used. They have upgraded the system with new control panels to support surface mode. The Perry Frigates had the newer control panels and were likely removed and refurbished. I don’t know what would have happened to the old RCPs (Remote Control Panels) but I would reach out to NOSC Louisville/Raytheon Louisville.

[@michaelkierum42]

Im assuming the Iowa's had block 1 or block 0 but not 1b. so no cameras for direct control.

[@ThePhalanx2006]

@@michaelkierum42 As far as I know 0. Wisconsin was one of the first Block 1

[@jyralnadreth4442]

@@ThePhalanx2006 Indeed...Iowa, New Jersey and Missouri all had Block 0 Phalanx, USS Wisconsin was the first ship in the USN with Block 1 in 1988. Block 0 could fire DU APDS at 3000rpm but Block 1 onwards was strictly Tungsten at 4500rpm. Block 0 had a smaller magazine (989 rounds) and took up to 30mins to reload, Block 1 onwards had 1550 rounds and took 5 minutes to reload due to improvements in the Ammo cassette. A barrel brace was also added to tighten dispersion IIRC

[@timo7641]

@@jyralnadreth4442 did Iowa, New Jersey and Missouri got upgraded to Block 1 or no?

[@disconductorder]

crazy they left them on there and didnt repurpose those, they seem relatively easy to remove. Ya think all the motion control drives and motors are there?

[@hauntedhouse7827]

When I was in the navy helping maintain and perform preventative maintenance on the single CIWS on my ship was one of my tasks. We always had trouble keeping it in service because it was so complicated it tried to break down. We used to say CIWS stood for Christ It Won't Shoot.

[@largol33t1]

Bahahahahahaa! I always loved hearing Navy humor. They came up with the best jokes.

[@JoshuaTootell]

I heard that our CIWS was down the whole time we were in the middle east. I learned that after returning. Never confirmed it with the FT I know,I don't want to know. Good thing we never got shot at! 🤣

[@hauntedhouse7827]

@@JoshuaTootell Hopefully the version the army uses works a little better

[@JoshuaTootell]

I hope so. But I was also USCG, and our budget made the Navy look rich @@hauntedhouse7827 🤣

[@hauntedhouse7827]

@@JoshuaTootell Yikes!

[@kturini]

Ryan is doing a much much bette job of looking at the camera and not putting his hands in his pockets than the early videos. Good content!

[@jimmccormick6091]

Now, if we could just get him to drag a razor across his face, or produce a no shave chit.......

[@wierdalien1]

@@jimmccormick6091 nope

[@johncashwell1024]

Yes, he is getting a lot better; there are far fewer "nervous pauses" as well.

[@wierdalien1]

@@johncashwell1024 a lot less uhhhhhh thinking moments.

[@Duke_of_Prunes]

@@jimmccormick6091 I don't understand how this guy has a 5:00 shadow in every video, but never has a full beard 🤔

[@Custerd1]

4:30 - a friend of mine who served in the navy said they were testing their Phalanx system one day. They made it unsafe and apparently set the sensitivity too high. The seagulls that approached their ship instantly became pink fog.

[@casualbird7671]

That sounds amazing, I hope it's a true story

[@Ganiscol]

Probably seaman's yarn 😏

[@ck538]

@@casualbird7671 When I was getting ready for deployment in 2016 our CIWS accidentally did the same thing when we were testing against towed drones.

[@karlmckinnell2635]

I was a civy in the shipyards and heard a story one time that some sailors were tracking gulls via optical cameras and the accompanying radar was dropping them from the sky and apparently they couldn’t figure out why they kept disappearing.

[@plandl1]

At 2:11 ours on the USS (I won't say), we almost shot down a commercial airliner because we could not receive the sqawk. Went to GQ, had incoming bogey from Afghanistan, had missles locked and finally another ship got the squawk and we stood down. This happened in the middle of the night. Very tense situation and everyone was relieved that didn't kill a bunch of civilians. That's my sea story.

[@lnaesll]

Heavier ammunition doesn’t mean higher velocities. Usually it means the opposite. But it does carry far more kinetic energy to the target. (Mass x velocity²). It is also much harder of a metal so it will cut through things much easier. (See Moh’s hardness scale) On that note I’m addicted to this channel. Keep them coming bro!

[@SeanBZA]

That is why it is 11mm diameter with a 20mm discarding sabot, most of the high amount of energy in the 20mm drive charge is imparted to the projectile. The soft sabot does not wear the barrel much, and is light enough that almost all the drive is passed through to the penetrator, with the sabot only being a fraction of the mass. Also a smaller amount of drag, so less variance from shell to shell, plus the surface is not damaged from driving rings and scores in the barrel.

[@MrEddieLomax]

Yep, at high velocities mass is the only variable of importance - if your hit by a lump of jelly at 2000km/s its far worse then a sharp pencil at 2000km/s

[@Edax_Royeaux]

It depends, heavier ammunition means it *can* move at higher velocities because it will be less affected by the aerodynamic forces around it. You fire a light round too fast and it'll just explode from the air friction creating a ceiling with how fast light munitions can move.

[@fukkitful]

Depleted uranium. Around twice as dense as lead. Uranium shells burn away at the edges upon impact, "self-sharpening" that helps them bore into armor.

[@Tom-dl6ze]

I didn’t come here for math

[@joegilroy1280]

I must say I properly enjoy watching this content and Ryan's knowledge of the battleship is incredible. Honestly this is my favorite channel. Keep up the amazing work.

[@ravenbarsrepairs5594]

Since thats just a blank rack, and you don't need it to function, why not make up filler panel(s), with appropriate components to look correct. I'm sure there are pictures of what the rack should look like.

[@IvorMektin1701]

I think they found what they needed on the last strip trip.

[@ericrichard6406]

I was thinking the same thing..

[@MrMattumbo]

I mean it would be cool if it was at least functional enough to fire the gun... I'd donate to squeeze off a burst of 20mm blanks lol

[@hindugoat2302]

then it wouldnt be a battleship, but a replica

[@EdHunter55]

@@IvorMektin1701 yeah after twenty years of looking. A temporary panel for those years would not have been a terrible idea. =P

[@aw34565]

Great video. After USS Jarrett engaged USS Missouri's chaff cloud with Phalanx during the Gulf War, the Iraqi Silkworm missile was shot down by a Sea Dart missile fired from HMS Gloucester in the first ever inception of an anti-ship missile by another missile in a battle.

[@andreww2098]

After the Falklands conflict the Royal Navy spent a lot of time on missile defence

[@mrkeiths48]

We heard great stories about how badass Phalanx was in the mid 80's, and those R2D2 looking mounts appeared really cool as surface ships cruised by our base at Point Loma. It all became quite real when we were tied up next to a surface ship in Hong Kong Harbor. Walking by the Phalanx CWIS on that ship and seeing those depleted uranium rounds on belts made everyone understand just how lethal this system is. Wow!

[@rogue9ine]

It really surprised me that the Navy left those CIWS mounts on the Iowa’s when they were decommissioned. They were fairly new at the time and could have been used on newly built Destroyers.

[@bjturon]

That is exactly my question too! 🤔

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

They were not left but reacquired. They are gutted inside.

[@bjturon]

@@BattleshipNewJersey Interesting! That sounds like another video... how do you reacquire a "literal piece of heavy artillery*" for a museum ship?" 😄 *War Wagon quote... favorite film as a kid, hard to beat a Gatling Gun... kzbin.info/www/bejne/i3mteGWkgMd4aZY

[@jth877]

Those are also an early version no longer in use.

[@Marin3r101]

@@BattleshipNewJersey meaning all the radar tracking systems were removed so they could be used on new systems. My guess is these were just made into manually operated gatling systems and considering 20 mm ammunition is not readily available it essentially made it inert.

[@paulheitkemper1559]

I worked with two of the men who developed the software of the Phalanx at the Naval Ordinance Center in Louisville, KY. Smart as heck.

[@Echowhiskeyone]

The Phalanx is cool. That is the same setup as on USS Sacramento. SLQ-32(my station)CIWS RCP, the air radar(NTDS console). I had the rundown on how to fire the CIWS, and got to unofficially fire a short burst.

[@robertf3479]

I had to qualify as a CIC Watch Supervisor in Caron (DD 970). First Class POs like me wouldn't be placed in that position in Condition II (Wartime Steaming) conditions, but both the Operations Office and Captain wanted their OPS Department E-6 and above to qualify. The thinking was that the Soviets could have 'pulled the trigger' anywhere at anytime. This involved learning more than just the basics of our ship's sensors, EW (SLQ-32-V2), SRBOC and all the weapons including Sea Sparrow and Phalanx. Also, because of the asymmetric layout of the weapons placement we had gaps not covered by CIWS the CIC WATCHSUP had authority to maneuver the ship to 'unmask' weapons, something I was allowed to do during training ... almost as much fun as actually manning the Helm and steering.

[@luciusvorenus9445]

EWs do it with frequency! Graduate of Corry Station Jr. High 1990.

[@burroaks7]

1:06 lmao the Mitsubishi monitor....how ironic the AA display screen on a ship that shot at incoming mitsubishis has one of its main interfaces made by the old enemy

[@megumin1054]

@Steve Wolcott We use more Belgian firearms than German in the US military. The M249, M240 and new production M4s and M4A1s are made by FN.

[@Joshua_N-A]

@@megumin1054 isn't FN also related to John Moses Browning?

[@megumin1054]

@Steve Wolcott Those are in much smaller numbers by SOF. The MP5 has largely been withdrawn from service. I used to maintain MP5Ks when CID used them. The majority of firearms in DoD are FN guns. On your other comment the US military never used the G3 or HK33. I own a PTR 91 and like it but we never used G3 type weapons in the US military.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Made in Japan back then was a huge. It was the Bubble Era Japan.

[@russellhltn1396]

I've always thought the most incredible thing about WWII was turning two enemies into friends.

[@EthanMerbaum]

Ryan is like if drac released a 5 minute guide on the new Jersey that went on for 1000 hours

[@JoshuaTootell]

AmeriDrac? DracMerica?

[@Real_Claudy_Focan]

Dutch-made "Goalkeeper" from Signaal with GAU-8 is the best CIWS Pinpoint accuracy, sheer power from the A-10 gun ; best combo ever !

[@VigilanteAgumon]

The US Navy evaluated the Goalkeeper and found that while it had the same performance against subsonic targets as a Phalanx, it was actually inferior against supersonic targets. This may also be the reason why the Royal Navy replaced its Goalkeepers with Phalanxes.

[@raygiordano1045]

11:22 I heard the radar also likes expensive caviar, fine wine, Cuban cigars, and classical music. Definitely one of the most sophisticated radars around.

[@Hale444]

I thought it would like grape Nehi

[@ninus17]

@@Hale444like radar from mash.

[@CULatte]

Just rewatched some old vids before this, massive improvements in presentation and audio!👍

[@johnanderson02]

Another product of the Naval Ordinance plant here in Louisville, KY!

[@tyranusfan]

I think it's in Friedman's Battleship Design book, he mentioned that when they were cutting away those triple 40mm gun tubs in the 80s, they found the original skids that were meant to hold the ship's boats between the funnels. So, I imagine if you could look further down beneath that prefab CIWS structure, below the remnant of the gun tubs, you'd see the old boat skids!

[@russellhltn1396]

Trivia: The original Star Wars film was released the same year the Phalanx was approved for production after successful testing. I always found it strange that Star Wars had autonomous robots, but all the guns where hand-fired.

[@alexcitovsky7389]

If the StarWars guns were not hand fired, but automatically tracking targets and fire at 300 Km/s at the bombers, the Imperium would not have to build a new death Star in every movie.

[@user-ri4hy1qw4l]

Star Wars is just WWII in a sci-fi skin

[@russellhltn1396]

@@user-ri4hy1qw4l Exactly.

[@wackowacko8931]

@@user-ri4hy1qw4l More than you might think. The fight with the Millennium Falcon and the Tie fighters - the one fought by Luke and Han in the first movie after escaping the Death Star - all of that was mocked up from archived film footage of real Luftwaffe fighters attacking Allied bombers during WWII. The fight footage used was of guys shooting from the B-17 side blisters on the 50 cals, and some of the ball turret gunners tracking strafing runs as seen from other B-17s.

[@aseriesguy]

@@wackowacko8931 I have to laugh at Star Trek, etc star ship battles that appear to be patterned after the era of wooden ships and iron cannon firing within visual range when sophisticated long range sensors are in use. Yeah, I know, its just TV.

[@jimtalbott9535]

An idea for CWIS hardware: have you looked into “trainer” gear? I was at the “Undersea naval museum” in Bremerton, WA a few years back - they had trainer components for older nuclear warheads - very interesting stuff, but maybe some older CWIS trainer gear is out there somewhere? It, of course, wouldn’t prepare the ship to be reactivated for the “Panamanian Pleasure cruise and 16in target competition” you’re clearly planning, but it would provide a good visual.....;)

[@JK-ij1ks]

Oh boy I got a good laugh when he said "carrying ciws ammo box is too much to ask from sailors." Well, on Camden AOE-2 we didn't have any fancy elevators. My division had to hand carry 200 boxes to our 03 lvl ciws mag. No problem, we was young studs back then.

[@Boolag01]

Loving that “working” radar display next to the empty cwis control box. Nice work!

[@johno9507]

The Phalanx CIWS is not a 'chain gun'. A chain gun is a single barreled gun that uses a length of industrial chain (like a bicycle chain) to cycle its operating mechanism, whereas the Phalanx is a 6 barrelled rotary Gatling style gun that essentially uses a cam action to move the 6 bolts as the barrels rotate. It uses 20mm Linked ammunition not a chain of ammunition.

[@ronhmclaughlin]

Was going to say that myself, the Mk38s and 46s (not on the BBs) are chain guns in Navy usage though.

[@jamesharding3459]

I thought the M61 and derivatives used linkless feed?

[@ronhmclaughlin]

@@jamesharding3459 there are both options with the gun

[@michaelkierum42]

@@jamesharding3459 the ones I were trained on the shells were in drum not in links. but the load mechanism scoops a round into a chain belt which transports round to gun where another mechanism grabs out of links and mates it to cam captive bolt

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

I would push further and divest even the use of Gatling Gun, as that is a particular type of hand-cranked rotary gun. Rotary Cannon seems to me to be the most appropriate terminology for a rotating multibarrel gun of 20mm caliber or larger.

[@michaeldolch9126]

This channel is just GOLD!

[@SpartanElite43]

Just a week away from the Curator Tour and 5" gun firing and I cannot wait! See you soon Ryan!

[@kebabsvein1]

Ryans hair is a constantly changing pleasure from watching this. Some change every time

[@Andy-rp3ee]

This is so awesome. Having so much fun watching all of this Ryan!

[@Manatherindrell]

You should fill in the space with a piece of cardboard with CWIS written on it in sharpie.

[@skeletonwguitar4383]

Second to this

[@johnkruer7557]

Ryan, I know a little bit about the rack/computer test stand in the lower right hand corner at the 1:08 portion of the video. I designed that equipment rack back around 1986ish while working at NOSL. It was a shock resistant stand a pc/monitor/keyboard and dot matrix printer. They were built at NOS Louisville, KY.

[@user_16309]

First, audio much improved! Thank you. The videos are very interesting. In the past the poor audio made them difficult to enjoy. Thanks for making it so much better! Second, this system is one I've wanted to know more about. Thanks for this topic. I thought the "R2-D2" dome was ammunition not electronics. I've learned quite a bit from this video and will be sharing it to friends who will enjoy it as well.

[@Reactordrone]

Yeah, you can see the linkless ammunition drum under the gun when he's outside.

[@MrBlueBurd0451]

There's many close-in weapons systems around today, but as a Dutchman I am patriotically obligated to say Goalkeeper. Also because the main gun on that thing is the venerable GAU-8 Avenger, also known as the BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT, or the main gun of the A-10 Warthog.

[@Joshua_N-A]

Then there's the T250 37mm 6-barrel gatling prototype.

[@jagx234]

As an American I can agree because yes the Avenger Cannon is simply better

[@Snipergoat1]

I always thought the 30mm was overkill for a missile. It doesn't take much to drop one and that is an anti-tank round. Also it's much harder to mount a goalkeeper on a ship that wasn't designed for it. Phalanx is easy to install almost anywhere. GK used to be quite a bit less accurate though this is more to ridiculously good accuracy of the Phalanx rather than a fault of GK. IDK anything about newer systems, they may be just as accurate now.

[@robertschultz6922]

Yes I like the goalkeeper too but the new Russian system looks pretty good. Nothing beats the phalanx thought

[@burroaks7]

awesome video, lmao at the new structure welded on top of the older gun tubs never knew that very interesting very cool

[@billbrockman779]

There was a USN operated Phalanx next to my shop on the flightline at Balad AB in Iraq. We never heard or saw it in action, but several years earlier the base was known as “mortaritaville” due to bad incoming fire and the systems were used frequently, as far as we were told. I was just as glad to have missed that and the constant body armor required.

[@jwilliams703]

My last deployment to Iraq on basra we had 2 of these and one of them was less then 50m from my choo. It was incredibly loud when it found a target to make its bitch. God dang I loved it so much. I had to walk by it to get to the chow hall and I always plugged my ears in case it came to life.

[@cameronc1509]

I don’t know what made this channel come across my feed but I’m sure glad it did.. VERY interesting stuff. I want to take a curator tour one day

[@Philistine47]

The biggest problem with the Phalanx CIWS is the limited engagement range of the 20mm. A fast-moving missile is very likely to end up raining shrapnel and burning rocket fuel all over the ship even if successfully engaged - which is better than taking the hit from the intact missile, but still not awesome (especially if you're on a smaller ship). It's a lot like the problem of using 20 mm and 40 mm to shoot down kamikazes in WW2, in fact. And of course the limited engagement range also reduces its chances of successfully engaging a fast missile, which just won't be in the engagement envelope for very long. That said, it was an *extremely* effective system against the threats that predominated when it was initially designed and brought into service. Remarkably so, even, given its relatively low cost and small footprint, which allowed it to be spammed across not just the entire USN but the fleets of multiple allied nations.

[@richardmoore609]

It was a vital piece of air defense and still is. Having layered air defenses is absolutely vital for maintaining fleet defense. Say a target slips past the intercept missiles or they need to be reloaded. Any craft large enough to carry a phalanx shouldn't have to worry about shrapnel and as long as the fire is on the outside of the ship the fuel should burn off/put out by damage control. Certainly better then a 15×15 ft hole at the waterline. 20mm is also chosen as it has a high velocity while still maintaining a large mass and allows the use of variable timed and proxy fuze ammunition. It also allows for a longer burst time and faster rate of fire compared to similar calibers.

[@Philistine47]

@@richardmoore609 When the "shrapnel" is chunks of a 6 ton missile moving at Mach 2 or 3, that's enough to do even a major surface combatant some injury. And burning rocket fuel isn't great even if it is on the outside of the ship. Most gun CIWS systems developed since Phalanx have gone to 30 mm, specifically to push the engagement range farther out.

[@richardmoore609]

@@Philistine47 that whole situation relies on the missile even getting that close which is extremely unlikely in itself. In a realistic situation most targets will be neutralized well before that point. It's also definitely not as simple as 'bigger bullet go farther'. The best reason for opting for a larger caliber is penetration and more explosive filler. The benefits of a smaller round is more room for ammunition, faster rates of fire/longer burst time, flatter trajectory and higher velocity. I could write paragraphs on long range ballistics as it's a hobby of mine but I'd rather not do that right now.

[@Philistine47]

@@richardmoore609 You seem to be trying to have it both ways. Is CIWS vital to a layered air defense, or is it vanishingly improbable that enemy missiles ever even reach its engagement range? Pick one. And the minutiae of ballistics hardly matter when even the USN is supplementing (and trending toward just replacing) Phalanx CIWS with SeaRAM, which combines the sensor and computer package of Phalanx with a launcher for RIM-116 missiles. They're doing that because the threat environment has evolved since Phalanx was developed back in the 1970s, and now the Navy wants a longer engagement range in their last-ditch defensive system.

[@dusanbolek8004]

@@richardmoore609 Actually Phalanx CIWS has no advantage from those you mentioned. Compared to its Russian counterpart Kashtan despite having smaller caliber (Kashtan has 30 mm guns) it still has way lower rate of fire (each of two Kashan's barrel sets has higher rate of fire than whole Phalanx system) and it even has slightly smaller muzzle velocity (at least when compared to improved Kashtan-M). The main reason why Phalanx CIWS was designed so inadequate for its purpose was probably the fact that its designers designed it against known western threat, which at that time would be widely used Exocet missiles, which are sea skimming, but subsonic and the same goes for American missiles like Harpoons. They probably didn't fully comprehended the scale of threat by Russian anti-ship missiles, which were so ahead of the time that even now more than half century after they have been introduced into the service, P-500 Bazalt is still more capable than anything produced in the west. Phalanx CIWS was pretty much obsolete already when new, because it was never designed to intercept sea skimming, supersonic, swarm capable missiles with 2000 pound warhead as there was nothing like that available in the country of its origin and frankly speaking even now fifty years after it is still isn't. Compounding the questionable value of protection provided is also the limited number of deployed systems on American ships. Probably having an immortality complex from being a peaceful navy since WWII and therefore never facing a real threat in seventy years, US Navy decided to cut to half the number of Phalanx CIWS on USS Arleigh Burke destroyers, so since the fifth Flight IIa unit, USS Arleigh Burkes have only one Phalanx system, which is totally inadequate and leave half of approach angles around the ship with no protection at all. For comparison, way smaller Udalloy class destroyers always had and still have two significantly more capable Kashtan systems. The question of real Phalanx CIWS protection value is apparently very relevant now as some of these units are being replaced with SeaRAM system while US Navy people specifically mentioning Russian anti-ship missile threat as the reason to do so.

[@frackratsfenorki3689]

Ryan, regarding DDG's at present in the USN all Flight I and Flight II ships (DDG51-78) have both mount 21 and mount 22 Phalanx. 4 we modified to put SeaRAM on mount 22 aft. Those 4 ships are the forward deployed BMD ships in Rota. For Flight IIA (DDG79-84) ships they have both mount 21 and 22 Phalanx. For Flight IIA (DDG85-124) ships only have mount 22 Phalanx. So it is very close to 50/50. The intention for mount 22 only ships was not so they could add another Phalanx if needed. In fact it would be kinda complicated to do so. The reason is solely 'Technology Insertion'. Mostly to leave open infrastructure both on the mount, power and space in the accompanying compartments to add Laser Weapons. The first of which will occupy mount 21 is HELIOS. The first mount has already been delivered, it will most likely go to a Pearl Harbor based Flight IIA by October.

[@TJ24050]

At 10:24 It is not a chain gun, it is a Gatling gun. A chain gun does not refer to the belt of ammo being a “chain.” An actual chain gun, such as the M242 25mm bushmaster or M230 30mm Hughes, is called a chain gun because the bolt is driven in and out of battery by a literal chain and sprocket drive system. I was an infantryman in a mechanized battalion, so I became quite familiar with the M242 25mm bushmaster chain gun.

[@Mariner311]

Love/hate relationship with the CIWS - was a Seahawk Aircrewman deployed aboard frigates - the CIWS was right above our hangar - and one time as we were launching - the damned R2D2 slewed in our direction - ship was "testing" it. Pilot also saw it as we departed to port - we were PISSED and scared to death. Ship apologized .

[@danielfrench7857]

The ecm console is the Slq-32 it's what would detect incoming ship aircraft or missiles radar and determine if it's a threat. It's also where the Srobc is launched from

[@rmp5s]

Got that Zoom H1 and a lapel mic...nice! 😁 Really is a great, affordable audio solution. Cheap and easy! That's why I always tell people, "dude...get a lapel mic!" when I see vids with sub-par audio. It really doesn't have to be that way! You can even run a lapel on an old cellphone! I did exactly this with an old cellphone (Galaxy SIII ftw) and an app for MANY of my early videos. Audio is THE. MOST. IMPORTANT. PART of videos! You can have the most amazing thing to show people but, if they can't hear what you're saying, it won't matter! Just found your channel...I love the channel and I love watching people's growth and progress on KZbin. It's interesting to me for some reason. Keep up the good work!

[@BlahVideosBlahBlah]

Pantsir-M for best singular CIWS system in the world. Integrated multi-piece systems like the SeaRAM with the Goalkeeper may have an edge, but the Pantsir-M packs all of that into a single mount.

[@EstorilEm]

This is fascinating! Love looking at the mods during the 80s and actually seeing how well constructed these things were in the 40’s. Pleaaaaase do move videos showing some mods and their construction / materials versus the old school stuff! Also can you do a video showing where the cruise missile box launchers were located and their associated control systems?

[@johnbeauvais3159]

Is that a TBM in your profile picture?

[@CaptainMustanG4089]

Amazing video! Love learning the in's and out's of spaced that don't get mentioned elsewhere.

[@abb1793]

Personally I like the millennium CIWS, which, interestingly, kind of brings the benefit of the ww2 VT proximity fuze to the CIWS with the millenniums automatically programmed fuze, creating a wall of precision flak clouds for the incoming missiles to go through. I just noticed glancing at the wiki, the NJ was unique in that in it's vietnam deployment, it had the porsche engined QH-50 DASH anti-submarine drone that it used for bombardment observation in place of it's floatplanes.

[@redfax]

Great video, just a small note. It's called a chain gun because it's driven by an external motor rather than recoil, not because it's belt fed.

[@justice5149]

the content is always getting better

[@cristophermorrison7574]

Question, at timestamp 9:26 what is the piece of equipment behind his arm? Some sort of directional radar dish? Keep up the great work, I love these videos! Thanks

[@Whiskey11Gaming]

Secondary Battery Fire Control Director Radar. It's the radar used for ranging information for the secondary batteries which can also be used for the main batteries in a pinch.

[@cristophermorrison7574]

@@Whiskey11Gaming Awesome thank you

[@Tokeamani]

DU (depleted uranium) is DENSER than led. And weight does not aid velocity. BUT I like your videos and I think you’re doing a good job keeping the ship alive.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

11:57 - Also, inside a certain range, even if you do hit the missile, its debris will still be going fast enough to do some serious damage (something going Mach 3 wants to _keep_ going Mach 3).

[@michaelleone9480]

You can try and get in touch with the CIWS schools in Dam Neck or San Diego and see if they still have a rack laying around. Since that block is no longer in service on any active ship. Other than that Raytheon is your only other option since they are sent all of the old equipment once a ship is refitted with newer mounts

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Legally, they arent allowed to just give those things away.

[@michaelleone9480]

@@BattleshipNewJersey it can't hurt to try to talk with them. They might be able to point in in the right direction of where to source the parts if nothing else. Since they are the only places left likely to have/use the legacy CIWS control panels, other than Raytheon of course

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

We have relationships with many if these companies. They often donate money, they cannot donate parts.

[@jeffburnham6611]

I was always amused whenever they would test fire these things at drone targets while at sea during work ups. I could never figure out why there was always an announcement over the 1MC about not using electronics while the CIWS was being loaded. Since the MARDET was part of the Weapons Division, I got to know a few of the sailors that worked on the systems and handled the ammo. They told me the guns were electrically fired, so as a precaution there was an electronics "blackout" in effect during loading because they didn't want any rounds going off prematurely. Seemed like a plausible answer to me at the time.

[@Mlanding1]

You are right. I read that they the primers are electronically detonated because a firing pin would fail from heat due to the extreme rate of fire.

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

The Phalanx CIWS is probably a derivative, descendant or second cousin of the M168 Vulcan that the Army had in the late '60s thru the '80s. 6-barrel, 20mm, selectable 1500 and 3000 RPM rates of fire. There were towed versions and versions mounted on the M113 series of APCs (M163A2 for example). Early ones were manually aimed and later ones got a radar ranging system and auto-lead sights. Intended to defend front line ground combats units against rotary wing threats. It's dance partner the M48 Chaparral missile (a reworked Sidewinder) defended against fixed wing CAS aircraft.

[@noneyadamnbusiness6891]

as a former CWIS tech on a CG, the Phalanx doesn't use exclusively DU rounds. it also uses and has used since the mid 90's tungsten rounds as well.

[@nycat7906]

How about a video walking the main deck from bow to stern port and aft sides pointing out key features along the way

[@SteamCrane]

Excellent idea! ...but do port + stbd sides.

[@nycat7906]

@@SteamCrane LOL good catch Port and Starboard sides

[@ryanjones6303]

Tell me about doing oil changes on the engine, please Sir.

[@maxcaysey2844]

I think the SeaRam is probably the best against modern threats... its fast, highly maneuvable and can be fired when the incoming missile is at 20 miles, thus having a 6 mile kill box. It can also engage multiple targets at a time. But in all fairness. You still need layered defence for it to be safe.

[@KoishiVibin]

I'd argue that Phalanx would be better served on smaller and older ships or something, it's just not viable in the modern day because missiles cross its engagement envelope so darn quick.

[@flyaccelerated]

Not sure if any of you have been near a CWIS going off but it is a life changing experience! BRRRRRRRRRRRR! same as an A-10

[@johnknapp952]

The reason for the lower speed limit for the Phalanx radar was so as not to engage our own helos that might be flying around. Unfortunately someone forgot that the leading blades of the rotor disc go much faster. Watching a CIWS track your helo can be unnerving. I believe that got fixed at some point. Then again I sometimes think the GM's used our helo to make sure the CIWS was tracking correctly. 😅

[@andreww2098]

a common problem for Air Defence Radars, the Sergeant York system famously slewed round past a bleacher full of V.I.P's to target a porta potty extractor vent fan

[@VynalDerp]

@@andreww2098 impressive

[@justrob4586]

Would’ve been FCs, not GMs, but yes, CIWS would track the helo blades and would oscillate while trying to maintain the track at close range. Looked like R2D2 shaking his dick side to side 😂

[@johnknapp952]

@@justrob4586 I get where you coming at. FC's on the Operational side and GM's on the maintenance and ammo handling side. Would FC's also do the radar maintenance or was that someone else?

[@justrob4586]

@@johnknapp952 I was a FC and CIWS tech. We were the only ones that maintained and operated it, except for the occasional help from GMs during reload if we were short handed. Perhaps some other commands may have had GMs cross trained and more involved.

[@clubtepes2046]

Thanks for telling everyone how to defeat it. I'm sure that anyone who read, Red Storm Rising, remembers the part where two missiles were headed for the Nimitz and the CWIS couldn't figure out which one to lock onto first, and decided to do nothing. If that was a possible real scenario, I hope they fixed the software.

[@MrEddieLomax]

That bug occurred on a type-42 sea dart system during the 1982 Falklands war. Argie jets flew close together and then further apart when they go close, result was the software actually just crashed when 1 target became 2 and needed to be rebooted.. Not 100% sure if it was a similar bug but I remember the guys saying how they rebooted it in combat, remember this was 1982 and the kit was designed in the 60/70's - they literally had to manually flip switches to load each byte of the bootstrap.... It takes time....

[@dreweisenhofer5985]

Do you have any videos of those trips to the frigates where you looked for parts?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Yes: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4C3paGrqbCce5o

[@NofaKingway]

Love the works y'all do for your vessel.

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

I got my engineering degree, from Cal Poly Pomona (in the 80s). A General Dynamics facility was so close by, that many of the engineers, taught, part time at Cal Poly. So much so, that the school was referred to as "GD West". One of my instructors designed the analog feedback, control loop, of the Phalanx.

[@mikeweller9933]

Why is the light showing around the "sealed" door. Is it bad fitting or more corrosion?

[@frankconrad7323]

Wasn't dogged shut!!

[@Duncan_Campbell]

my thinking is, piss poor door, or corrosion.

[@junkers4567]

If you’re talking about the door in the cut right after hes outside looking at the gun itself, i dont think thats light… its metal showing. Probably a compartment being restored and someone took an angle grinder to some corrosion… thats what it looks like to me at least.

[@clydecessna737]

You said it right: we need more CWIS systems on ships; four minimum. The Navy's DNA is ship to ship combat but in reality it will be a land based enemy that has many more weapons than a ship that causes the trouble.

[@sparkycjb]

CARR (FFG-52) doesn't have the one you're looking for. In 2005 we upgraded to the CIWS Block 1B. You need an older RCP (remote control panel) for CIC. We had an RCS (Remote control station).

[@Av-vd3wk]

This is fantastic content! Keep it up! 👍🏻

[@smpd357sig]

Have you done a video on the 2 large antennas above the bridge?

[@MAHONEY1940]

Bang-up good job Ryan.

[@robertf3479]

The Phalanx is, I believe one of the first CIWS systems developed anywhere in the world. A number of other systems were developed by other nations along similar lines including the EU's Goalkeeper and the Soviet / Russian AK-630. Most CIWS systems today are products which have been improved over the years to add additional capability. As first developed the Phalanx had no capability against surface targets but as time progressed Raytheon added a visual targeting system which allows that Gatling Gun to be used against small surface targets like Iran's annoying little small attack boats. Also, most navies have added missile systems like the RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) and others to complement their CIWS gun systems either in separate mounts or in combined gun and missile mounts. In most of the USN Arleigh Burke class destroyers, that "empty" position on the superstructure forward of the Bridge is a vertical launch system specifically for the Nato Sea Sparrow Missile (NSSM,) in the 'first flight' Burkes this was indeed a forward position for Phalanx.

[@Reactordrone]

I think AK-630 pre-dates Phalanx by a few years.

[@bbsonjohn]

I am glad that US navy didn't rip the CWIS from the ship so we actually get to see it up close in the museum

[@fXBorgmeister]

Surely you could approach General Dynamics and ask for a mock-up perhaps? Seems like it might be a bit of a "win-win", Corporate gets to do a bit of ESG flex (and I'm not sure there's a great degree of wriggle room for this current trendy concept in defence, so "any angle" might even apply!) and you get a thing to fit to the ship.

[@leftseat30]

Served in Iraq and Afghanistan on base....yes I had it easy comparatively speaking. BUT....My point is, when the CIWS on base engaged an incoming mortar or rocket it was the CIWS (think the Army term was CRAM...counter rocket and mortar) I was more terrified of the CIWS than the incoming rocket or mortar. The sound and pressure put out by a firing CIWS will put the fear of god in you. It’s unreal.

[@sielingm]

Got a video idea.....ill let yall work out the details, but something along the lines of a "Museum Ship Navy". If they were all brought back into service, where would that rank as far as navys of the world go? Would be interesting to think about

[@nicholasstilley2370]

I love what you are doing with the channel it has revived my interest in warships. Have you got any plans in the works to do a video on the 40mm bofors fire director station I've never been able to quite wrap my head around how they worked

[@dave3156]

Really enjoyed this one Ryan nice job!!!

[@ManBearPig781]

3:06 is a clip of the Shield II Chaff system used by the RCN on a Halifax Frigate. Not SARBOC.

[@ncktbs]

im pretty sure the reason for DU rounds was for armor penetration on the warheads as they have to connect with a missile and most missile have heat resistant armor and actual armor to make sure they survive launch and other things in the air and the 20mm DU was left from the early a10 test project for tank fighting

[@trainman2226]

why not just make a fake control stand thats "close enough" for now until you can get a real one?

[@Joshua_N-A]

Replicas. They should hire prop makers to make some.

[@Marin3r101]

Because they actually want the real systems like the radar controllers in CEC.

[@alexcitovsky7389]

@@Marin3r101replica panels of restricted items should be ok. They have replica rounds instead of real shells. they run a different screen with a video loop in the radar station, because they can't actually use the radar.

[@hattrick8684]

Replicas should be fine, but if you can get the real thing why not? I guess if it’s something you really want to get the real thing for why waste money constructing a replica when money is finite.

[@thunderchaser2042]

Fake it 'til you can make it?

[@dennismason3740]

Are you shitting me, Ryan, the New Jersey mistook chaff for an enemy weapon and fired on the Missouri? This is a story that deserves one very well-produced doc.

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

Not NJ, but also the CIWS is an automatic system. It can be turned off but at that point it needed to be one. The automation of it means that a computer decides which targets to engage. Technology has its limits.

[@whatever8282828]

If a CIWS controller computer somehow became available on the open market, I bet a museum couldn't afford to outbid it!

[@alanrogers7090]

The "best" close-in weapons system was seen in the 1970 movie, "Patton", when they showed General Patton under air attack by the Germans and he pulls out his pistol to shoot back. Well, it may not be the "best", but it is the most awesome.

[@busterqhorse4226]

Love these videos! keep them coming!

[@adamdubin1276]

Wouldn't it be possible to create a look alike for the CIWS console using a combination of machined and 3D printed parts?

[@stevensaczawa183]

Ryan, what is the angled structure directly behind you in the end of this video ?

[@BattleshipNewJersey]

I believe what you're seeing is the refueling davit. Here's a video on that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHTYgYp_o9N3fpo

[@TRx-oj5nw]

These videos are rad!

[@largol33t1]

Question: how do they test fire it to ensure it works? Is there a button to hold down to make the barrels spin without activating the firing pin?

[@Greenlantern115]

"And this is where I put my CIWS control system IF I HAD ONE"

[@alexmelia8873]

underrated comment

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

2:20 - Fun fact: this is much the same technology as what air traffic controllers use to identify aircraft on radar (and modern IFF is still compatible with civil secondary surveillance radar).

[@FINNIUSORION]

It's funny that even some weapons people call it a gatling gun. Technically all Richard gatling guns were manually operated. This would be called a rotary gun , same story with the Vulcan on the A10. But people get the meaning. Just like asking for a cleanex when you want a tissue or asking for a skill saw when you want a circular saw. It's a brand that describes an entire product line.

[@SovietDictator]

The Phalanx is IMO the best CIWS out there right now, and I anticipate it won't be surpassed for a while yet. If anything, it'll see upgrades to what controls it and maybe some upgrades to the internals if necessary but the basic systems are going to be in service forever like the M1919 Browning .50 cal machine guns.

[@livingadreamlife1428]

Excellent info Ryan.

[@BigBadDodge4x4]

Close in Weapon system: Electro Mag Repulsion Array. Forces missiles away, and other metal type slower inbounds. Heavy bullets are more deflected and the " energy " in the bullet is greatly reduced.

[@Grisbane]

the old Tico cruisers have a dual controller for the block 1 CWIS... which would have been the same as what the Iowas had . I know Tico and Yorktown have been scrapped already but not sure about the Vincennes, Valley Forge or Gates. I know Bunker Hill was recently decommed so she may be in Philly and possibly may still have the block 1 controller. I know I am a year late and you did get single controllers but if you want a more period correct one in the correct config your best bet is with the older Tico Class cruisers. I was a CWIS tech on the Tico almost 20 years ago when she was decommed. Seriously doubt they retrofitted those old controllers since most ships now have a modernized Phalanx system.

[@congoparrot]

curious about that elevator. i dont see the hatch or how it works.

[@Rzymek85]

the best...i will have to go with Cashtan. Bigger caliber better rate of fire plus missiles . But i suspect the direct energy weapons will make it obsolete soon

[@hughjackman1573]

Call Raytheon or northrup and grommet they are the ones who work on those systems, not sure if you’ll be able to get a working one but I’m sure they have some broken ones you could have