posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by Harlequin
Looks impressive, and the performance certainly looks eye-popping.
To answer "Why not combine gun and missile in one package?", I can think of a couple of possible reasons. I can ask some friends for better info,
and I might actually get an answer...if I do, I'll pass it along, but here's my take on the question.
1) It adds mass to the mounting. That's not good in a system that has to have a very high rate of train / elevation...momentum will be working
against your tracking on a close range target. Increased weight might have adverse impacts on stability in smaller vessels, as well (not an issue on
carriers / cruisers!).
2) Complexity. There's a LOT going on in there, and it's all going on in a very small space. Lots of electronics + lots of moving parts + exposure
to shock (from cannon fire) = bad mojo. There's also the old rule of thumb..."the odds of a mechanical malfunction increase geometrically with the
number of moving parts."
Also, if I'm reading the article right, the system has four 'ready' missiles, 24 'standby' missiles, and a 1.5 minute reload cycle for the
missiles. Sounds like the weapon might have a problem with saturation, if the inbound weapons were spaced out correctly....draw out the four ready
load missiles with a lead wave, and your next wave or three is facing a gun-based CIWS. I'm a bit surprised that the on-mount sensors don't take
care of IFF interrogation...seems like this system might also be vulnerable to a single-point failure in the command module.
That said, I can also see the appeal of such a system...it lets you get more defensive capability from a certain amount of deck space (almost always
at a premium).