HMS Prince of Wales has is once again having Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS) fitted.

The Phalanx Close-In Weapons System is designed for use as an anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence, the vessel also carries 30mm Automated Small Calibre Guns and Miniguns for use against fast attack craft.

The system is radar-controlled and is said to provide a “last chance” defence for ships against anti-ship missiles and aircraft. It automatically detects, tracks and engages threats. It features a 20mm M-61A1cannon, search and track radar and FLIR in the Block 1B model. To date, the United States Navy and 20 other nations have purchased more than 850 Phalanx systems.

The £3.2bn aircraft carrier returned to her home port in March after participating in NATO’s Exercise Steadfast Defender, the largest NATO operation since the Cold War. The carrier led a UK Carrier Strike Group and conducted various operations with allies off the coast of Norway. Her arrival in Old Portsmouth was met with crowds of people welcoming her back.

Since her return, the 65,000-tonne warship has been undergoing a maintenance period in the harbour, with scaffolding visible on the flight deck as personnel perform necessary work.

Undergoing maintenance is routine and essential for the ship’s continued reliability, ensuring the fleet can meet all its commitments.

Looking ahead, HMS Prince of Wales is scheduled to be deployed to the Indo-Pacific in 2025 for military exercises. She will lead a UK Carrier Strike Group and collaborate with allies such as Japan and the USA. Defence Secretary Grant Shapps stated that this deployment will send a “strong message” to those who might challenge the international order,

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

266 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Simon
Simon (@guest_819652)
24 days ago

Why has this happened sooner. This is an absolute min requirement for such a large and expensive ship. The MOD should be investing much further and install an integrated missile defence layer to include Antiship missiles.
Hope this is the 1st stage?

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_821198)
19 days ago
Reply to  Simon

penny pinching at its glorious best. not even fitted for but not with

Hsmxlls
Hsmxlls (@guest_819653)
24 days ago

Is there any chance we can properly utilise our aircraft carriers for what they are supposed to be used for? War fighting. The Red Sea Crisis was a perfect opportunity to deploy a CSG to respond to an international crisis and use our F35’s on board to strike Houthi targets in Yemen. Instead we are using our carriers for what can only be described as diplomatic missions really

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_821199)
19 days ago
Reply to  Hsmxlls

this conflict is the perfect opportunity to deploy the dragonfire system.ifbit can’t knock drones down theres no point wasting money on it

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819654)
24 days ago

There’s mention here of the 30mm being fitted too? That’ll be a first for either of the carriers. It will be good to see photographic evidence of this. And hoping extras like the Ancilia decoy systems gets added sometime and Dragonfire eventually.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819655)
24 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Dragonfire will likely only go on escorts. The carrier’s are not operated like escorts.

Jon
Jon (@guest_819657)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Why do you think Dragonfire more appropriate for escorts? I’d have thought anything which carries CIWS would be a candidate.

Jim
Jim (@guest_819709)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Dragon fire makes a lot of sense on a carrier as carriers have boat loads of electrical power and laser weapons don’t make smoke.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819744)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Possibly. But the escorts are primarily for fleet defence. The carrier for generating air power.

Marked
Marked (@guest_819672)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Yeah nobody is ever going to target a carrier 🤣

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819743)
24 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Name a carrier that has used its defensive weapons I’m anger? in the last 40 years?

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_819749)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

HMS Invincible – 1982,given it is 42 years.

TR
TR (@guest_819812)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Which weapons didnHMS invincible fire?

Benjamin Rule
Benjamin Rule (@guest_819822)
24 days ago
Reply to  TR

Sea Dart

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819823)
24 days ago
Reply to  TR

She fired off a load of Sea Dart.

The mess that made and the time it took for the FOD plod shaped RN thinking….a little too much.

Particularly now we have nice cold launch weapons.

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820044)
23 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Certainly not playing a game of top trumps with you on these topics. Solid knowledge!

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_821202)
19 days ago
Reply to  Arson Fire

top trumps we get too much on here most of it is just bullshit spouted so that someone can feel as if they know what they are talking about Googled from the net quoting reports and technical fantasys🛑🛑🛑

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_821269)
19 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Very true. My all time favourite bite on here was from so racist old prat complaining about immigrants. This is a made for advertising website that actually has a reasonably nice community in most cases though.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819755)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Is that a fair question? I don’t think any carriers of any nation have been in combat with a peer or near-peer opponent in the last 40 years.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero (@guest_819819)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

USS Dwight D Eisenhower has used her defensive weapons during several Houthi drone attacks on her carrier task group in the first quarter of this year.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819864)
24 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Has she?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey (@guest_819943)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Indeed she has

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_821203)
19 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

where did you get that from?

Ian Bradley
Ian Bradley (@guest_820022)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Things have changed an awful lot in the last 40 years, near peer conflict is a possibility again and some might say we are already in the opening stages! The West now faces the threat of a global conflict, one which is likely to involve countries such as China, Iran, Russia and possibly others. The countries mentioned know they would have to neutralise the US’s carriers, and have invested in vast stockpiles of drones and missiles. For me, I think it would be prudent for the UK to invest in whatever is needed to prevent the entire carrier strike groups… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819699)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I respectfully disagree, Dragonfire is a defensive system and absolutely should go on the carriers so should the Ancilia decoy system. All castles have their own defences, these castles of the seas need theirs.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819742)
24 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Decoy system yes. Other weapons. No. Escorts are the best weapons for fleet defence. That is what they are designed to do. Train to do, so the carrier can concentrate on its primary job. Generating air power. They are not big destroyers that carry aircraft. They arw not operated in the sane way at all compared to escorts. A Nimitz class has never fired any defensive weapons in anger. Even the one sat in the Red Sea. Because they are for a completely different role.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819758)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Carriers are protected by layered defence. Surely the last layer should be on the carrier itself – that has always been the case irrespective of nationality of vessel or era.

Because no carrier has fired its defensive weapons in ages just means that any nation’s carriers have not been doing serious warfighting in the last 40 years.
[It’s the army that has been doing the warfighting! Sorry matelots, but you know it is true!]

Lord Baddlesmere
Lord Baddlesmere (@guest_819922)
23 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Except our navy is the smallest it’s been for over 400 hundred years- had we gone ahead with the original numbers of Type 45 you may have a point our fleet is woefully inadequate

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820113)
23 days ago

I am sure you are right that our navy is the smallest for over 400 years.

A British politician would say that it is also the largest navy in Europe, 2nd largest in NATO, unless the French want to counter-claim!

I recall that the Navy’s requirement was for 12 x T45s. The navy is too small for a credible Rank 2 bluewater navy.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_819772)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Like the USN have many more escorts than UK or Europe .No need to worry, however escorts may struggle if small in numbers ? Best to have carriers Armed is really worth the loss of a ship for the sake of a weapon system 🤔

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819868)
24 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

That is why we work with allies. If our very capable F35 with AMRAAM ASRAAM can’t defeat a threat, then the T45 will. Or T23, T26, T31, US Navy escorts, people are fixated on unrealistic scenarios. It isn’t a film or a Tom Clancy novel. The RN has the most experience of fleet defence and how carrier’s are operated. If a carrier has to use its own defensive weapons, then all is probably lost. Currently, there is no threat that can make that scenario a reality

edwinr
edwinr (@guest_819891)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

So, if the enemy can defeat/overwhelm our escorts (more likely than not given the limited escort numbers we have) we just accept the end result?

Okay. Makes sense to me.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819941)
23 days ago
Reply to  edwinr

You guys are missing the point entirely.And are over simplifying how carrier aviation works.Let alone global politics. I’d like to see which mystery nations suddenly have the capability and national will to try and overpower a UK carrier task group that would be with a coalition of warships and US Navy assets.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_819983)
23 days ago
Reply to  edwinr

👍

Jess
Jess (@guest_819974)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

As many as possible systems may be needed in future with the advent of saturation attacks being a likely situation with Iran able to casually launch over 100 drones just to fly the flag against Israel. I’m thinking maybe it’s not very unrealistic for 300 to be sent against the fleet in a real attack. And ukraines unmanned boats have sunk many boats against defences more close in weapons the better and ones not limited by ammunition like lasers are very usefull

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_819982)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

And by the carriers having there own weapon systems it may just save the day keeping the Aircraft still in the Battle. 🤔 cheers.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820001)
23 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Again. If a carrier, any carrier had to use it own close In weapon systems, then something has gone very very badly wrong. All aircraft in the task group have failed, all escorts have failed. And currently there isn’t a realistic scenario where that would work out.

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820046)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Things go very badly wrong all the time with complex war machines and ever complex missile systems.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820053)
23 days ago
Reply to  Arson Fire

And that is why the training is relentless. And a constant with our allies. Interoperability is key. If it was still in the RN, I would feel very safe on-board one of the QE class. F35 is provides an air dominace capability matched only by F22. F35 is superior in many ways.

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820196)
22 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Love it when I get a bite from a man on a high horse. Get into the net fishy. Training is one thing. Fighting a war is a whole other ball game. 70k troops, carriers without many planes, some hastily bought girls artillery and a handful of tanks from yesteryears. OK mate.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820218)
22 days ago
Reply to  Arson Fire

Have you any experience of war fighting? Nope.

Cognitio68
Cognitio68 (@guest_820738)
20 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Robert. You seem to be suggesting that the RN should depend on a limited number of F35s or a limited number of RN escort vessels or the largesse of willing allies.
The flaw in that approach is that you don’t always get to choose your fight. If you have dependencies on unreliable\unavailable 3rd parties or if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time it’s probably best to have at least some contingencies.
There’s probably a reason why other nations arm their capital ships with defensive weapons.

Last edited 20 days ago by Cognitio68
Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_821292)
19 days ago
Reply to  Cognitio68

Other nations do because they don’t have the fleet wide defence capability that we do. The exception is the Americans. But we don’t have a US size economy or defence budget. T45, Sea Viper, Sea Ceptor, NSM, F35 with AMRAAM and ASRAAM, Crownsnest. All add up to a very capable force with the available defence budget.

William Jardim
William Jardim (@guest_821245)
19 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The RN has the most experience of fleet defence and how carrier’s are operated. Are you Sure?

Bob
Bob (@guest_819872)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Is that why US carriers carry defensive weapons?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819944)
23 days ago
Reply to  Bob

Weapons that have never been used. Ever. Our investment has gone into T45 capability. We are not going to be at a war with China or anyone else with a QE class and a couple of escorts. It simply doesn’t work that way.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819994)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

It’ll be interesting to see what the CSG may face if and when it transits through Suez and Gulf and then the SCS next year.
Hope it pops into Sydney for a visit this time. Sydney harbour could host the whole group!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820000)
23 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

She would look fantastic alongside in Sydney Harbour. Great run ashore for the crew. 👍

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820047)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

It hasn’t worked that way for 70 years but look at the way things are heading. Listen to what all the top brass of multiple countries are saying and look at how all these countries with massive debt and public service funding issues are finding money to gear up. Just like the stock market. Past performance is not an indicator of future outcomes.

Jason
Jason (@guest_819750)
24 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Agreed it should go on all craft and power supply isn’t much of an issue as you could easily add a small back up power base it uses very little energy for the protection it gives and ships will be swarmed

Derek
Derek (@guest_819765)
24 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Absolutely agree, the more weapon capability the better and Dragonfire should be a no brainer

Jim
Jim (@guest_819708)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Surely our carriers are completely undefended unless they carry their own aster missiles, laser beams, photon torpedos and a deck mounted battery of trident D5 missiles.

I know it’s true I read it on here, all American and French carriers have this as standard 😀

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_819714)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jim

SSM’s (?), maybe but you forgot the cloaking device for all to klyngon to in times of danger and the sonic screwdriver. 👽

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_819865)
24 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

I think they have them on the starboard bow.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_819877)
24 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Ah, should have thought of that. Cheers.🍺

DB
DB (@guest_819908)
23 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Calling Captain Kirk.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819909)
23 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Jim….😆

ChariotRider
ChariotRider (@guest_820668)
21 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

😀😂

Showing yer age there mate!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819740)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jim

😆

Pete
Pete (@guest_819761)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jim

In all seriousness, carries havent faced the prospect, until very recently, of navigating narrow chock points with the potential threat of dozens of land based swarming drones. It’s a 21st century threat.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820007)
23 days ago
Reply to  Pete

A carrier would never operate in the range of swarm drones.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820048)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

You know that swarm that hit Israel, it was 1500km…

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820050)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

And every single one was shot down.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820062)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

But you said the carrier would never operate in range of swarm drones…

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820116)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Try launching swarm drones at a moving target that can do 30 knots. Plus you have to find the carrier. Good luck with that. We also uses something called intelligence. And if anyone would be foolish enough to attack a nations aircraft carrier, then you are in for a very bad day. Just think about it Alex.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820181)
22 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Iran, Houthis will have no issue detecting a carrier. Even can be done by civilian ships and you cannot do anything about.

Then, what UK can do to Iran or Houthis if QE is hit because Royal Navy is repeating Falklands mistakes?

Next day you will have “protests” in the street by “activists” in London and the only thing a serious punitive strike against Iran oil industry will never see the day.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820219)
22 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Wrong. It is not easy finding a carrier when it’s running electronically silent. Big ships, but the sea is vast. And the Houthis have pretty piss poor record of hitting anything in the Red Sea compared to hiw many missiles and drones they have fired off. Maritime warfighting is not like it is in movies or Tom Clancy novels.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts (@guest_820739)
20 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

They’ve taken down 4 us drones so far.

Shaun Sheppard
Shaun Sheppard (@guest_820258)
22 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

At what cost and requiring how many nations forces? The asymmetric nature of the attacks requires adaptation in defensive weapons and tactics.

pete
pete (@guest_820140)
22 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

You clearly didn’t read what I typed. Passing through narrow choke points, Gulf, Red Sea, Suez, Straights of Gibraltar. Some locations so tight escorts may be strung out with limited time, space to react. Stop making Justifications for MOD penny pinching.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820215)
22 days ago
Reply to  pete

I have been through those straits in real aircraft carriers, numerous times. Stop making up unrealistic scenarios or make it look like the RN doesn’t know what its doing. They know exactly what the intelligence threat is, and has the tools to deal with anything that can arise.

Pete
Pete (@guest_820331)
22 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Biggest threat of all…..arrogance.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820458)
21 days ago
Reply to  Pete

I don’t think there is any arrogance in the intelligence and military organisations that continually assess the threats the nation faces.

pete
pete (@guest_820713)
20 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

so your view. the royal navy today can foresee and deal with any threat. Wow…as I said…arrogance (not by RN generally, but by you). RN didn’t pre-emptively stop attacks on unarmed shipping in the red Sea. They reacted after attacks started and civilian ships continue to be struck, albeit at a reduced rate, after ‘mitigations’ have been put in place.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820734)
20 days ago
Reply to  pete

Its not from arrogance Peter, but from experience and an understanding of how things work. In the real world, not in the fantasy UKDJ comments section world.

pete
pete (@guest_820743)
20 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I too work in high-risk ‘remote’ environments and sectors globally Robert where incidents and real world events can have dire and catastrophic consequences to people, assets and outcomes, despite the best laid plans, contingencies and assumptions. Equipment failures, actions of other actors, natural events etc can all generate Blackswan events. Going back to the original topic. Does the nature and state of armament and protection on Royal Navy vessels in past few years reflect (to steal from another sector) the concept of risk assessment and mitigation to being “ALARP” or does it reflect a view, not by the RN, but… Read more »

William Jardim
William Jardim (@guest_821247)
19 days ago
Reply to  pete

…..Strait of Gibraltar …..

Shaun Sheppard
Shaun Sheppard (@guest_820257)
22 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Carriers pass through narrow straits all the time and drone ranges are increasing steadily. There is every chance in this age of swarm attacks that escorts run out of missiles and other ordnance to throw up at them. The threat scenarios are widening not narrowing, so the defensive response has to change to meet it. If that means defensive weapons on a carrier then so be it.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_819861)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jim

But do the carriers have the ability to reverse polarity?

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_819933)
23 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Well…

US carriers: Phalanx, RAM, ESSM/Sparrow
Italians : 25mm, 76mm, Aster VLS SAM
French: 20mm, Aster VLS SAM
Indians : AK630 CIWS, Barak VLS SAM
Chinese: Type 1130 CIWS, HQ 10 VLS SAM

Last edited 23 days ago by AlexS
Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819997)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

What a list. Why does the RN even risk having such low levels of defensive capabilities on the QE carriers? The carrier should be it’s own fortress. Reliant to some degree on escorts yes, but not nearly so totally dependent.

Last edited 23 days ago by Quentin D63
Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820008)
23 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The escorts, but most importantly, the aircraft, are the fortress. A QE class with escorts would be operating as part of a much much larger coalition of warships and carrier’s and aircraft. They arw neve going to be alone, especially if we are heading into a genuine high threat level environment. I would argue, they are the best protected carriers available.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820036)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Aircraft can’t protect a carrier in the age of long range missile.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820052)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Good luck getting a kill chain on a carrier that doesn’t want to be found over the horizon. And you would need even more luck getting through the most advanced and capable air defence network available.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820063)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Hubris.
UK does not even have enough escorts.

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820069)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

There is plenty of hubris on here. That’s for sure. People carry on like the UK still has a commendable fighting force and are well respected in the international community. We are a bit part player at best. Our country is totally and utterly fucked for the foreseeable future.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820117)
23 days ago
Reply to  Arson Fire

Comments like that just show how little you understand.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820121)
23 days ago
Reply to  Arson Fire

We are very well respected in the international community. Hence why we train so many other nations. Thousands of troops for Ukraine for example. Scores of nations use our officer training at Cranwell, Dartmouth and Sandhurst. Operational sea training provided for countless Navy’s. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820119)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Remember all those allies we constantly work with? 2 T45’s, 2 T23’s. A US Navy asset or two, plus numerous other nations we regularly work alongside. Any conflict where the political fallout has been that bad that we start shooting at each other would include a massive NATO /coalition/ US involvement. kinda like the Gulf wars. The carrier’s would be surrounded by the most capable integrated air defence system ever put to sea.

pete
pete (@guest_820141)
22 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

You keep assuming ‘over the horizon’ maybe johny foreigner will do the decent thing and only engage on RN terms….let me think about that…

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820216)
22 days ago
Reply to  pete

The RN trains to deal with all threats. I would have a little more faith in the subject matter experts in our Armed Force’s.

Lord Baddlesmere
Lord Baddlesmere (@guest_820134)
22 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Or mass drone attack

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820183)
22 days ago

Yes, i think any missile attack against a carrier will involve drones for intel and decoys to waste missiles and tire the force. Also diversion attacks to drive a part of aircraft elsewhere.
A bit like in Midway naval battle the Japanese CAP was being degraded as the US aircrafts keep arriving.

Darryl2164
Darryl2164 (@guest_819795)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I,d have thought dragonfire could and should be fitted to every surface combatant

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819821)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I fundamentally disagree.

Dragonfire would augment the 30mm in the anti drone role.

The carriers are not escorted the whole time and are a prime target for the nutters and their pawns.

The one thing QEC has is plenty of power and a stable deck – the two things that make a laser weapon super effective. So I’d say they would be high on the list of vessels to fit laser to.

On your argument you would never fit 30mm or Phalanx.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819862)
24 days ago

Phalanx has been fitted. We took Sra Dart off the invincible class,to make way for more aircraft. Because aircraft are the primary weapon for an aircraft carrier.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819866)
24 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Sea Dart was taken off Invincible primarily because it caused loads of FOD issues.

The secondary driver was making more space on board.

The justification for that was Sea Wolf (long story), improvements in Sea Dart and Phalanx….

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819945)
23 days ago

And it was the right decision. So the carrier can carry more of its primary weapon systems. Aircraft. Let the escorts do what they are designed and train to do.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820037)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Please don’t mixup the Sea Dart placement in Invincible with missiles placements in current carriers.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820051)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I served on Invincible class carrier’s. And I understand very well the capability of today’s weapon systems.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820065)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Is it your habit to change subjects?

Sea Dart was in the bow and inside the hull.
Launchers in US, Italian and French carriers are outside the hull.

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820070)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Even the proton torpedoes?

Lord Baddlesmere
Lord Baddlesmere (@guest_819924)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

CAMM could be container deck mounted

Dave
Dave (@guest_819907)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

What escorts? We have so few ships. Carriers are big they should be able to accommodate their own defences. Of course had the idiots specifying them included such things in the first place the civil servants would have bleated we can’t afford it while justifying even more civil servants for diversity or something. They should also have nuclear reactors generating power not oil so they don’t need a vulnerable oil tanker at all times and a nice flat deck with arresters and catapults so they could launch normal planes but the civil service didn’t want us able to fight their… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819940)
23 days ago
Reply to  Dave

Give over Dave. Nuclear powered carrier’s still need tankers and support vessels for food, water, stores and aviation fuel.

Dave
Dave (@guest_820084)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Accepted they need support for food but they should be able to deal with water themselves (submarines manage it) and the Americans are already experimenting with taking CO2 from the sea and producing aviation fuel from it, a perfectly possible thing to do (its been proven many times) but certainly requires the energy available from a reactor.

Che
Che (@guest_820080)
23 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Dragonfire can be put on pretty much anything with enough electrical power. Its a pretty compact system.

Oliver Gilkes
Oliver Gilkes (@guest_819720)
24 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Long ago we considered buying the 30mm Dutch goalkeeper, indeed I think some systems were purchased for use on the type 22s. I presume we ended up with phalanx due to ne need for consistency with the USN.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819730)
24 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

T22B3s had it, and I recall the Albions too.
Recall GB saying It was deck penetrating so invasive to install and maintain, where Phalanx isn’t.

Grinch
Grinch (@guest_819747)
24 days ago

Plus IIRC there were concerns about the accuracy of Goalkeeper

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819751)
24 days ago
Reply to  Grinch

Were there? I recall it had a v high rate of fire vs Phalanx.
To my layman’s eye it looked the business.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_819810)
24 days ago

I think Gunbuster spoke mainly of its mechanical complexity and the difficulty of fitting and then maintaining the large below-decks area of the permanent mount. In theory 30mm CIWS should be more effective but I think Phalanx accuracy quickly overtook Goalkeeper.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819815)
24 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Hi SB. Thanks.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_819842)
24 days ago

Have you started commenting from your phone as well as a computer?
Some of your recent comments have no photo.
I use my phone because when out and about it’s simply much more convenient.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819878)
24 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Oh, interesting, I’d not noted that!
I post on either my home PC, the work PC, or my mobile.
Assumed that the gravatar would always be there?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819879)
24 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

And now I post at work, as on nights, and good old Mithrander is there?

John Hartley
John Hartley (@guest_819830)
24 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Ithink I have seen a new South Korean CIWS with a 30mm gatling gun. One version looked as if it was not deck penetrating.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_819843)
24 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

The Chinese use an enormous 11 barreled 30mm CIWS, which I think is deck-penetrating.
These sorts of “heavy CIWS” designs rely on having heavier sensors and shells and a higher weight of fire, but they really need to be designed into the ship at the beginning and are more unreliable than bolt-ons, as far as I can tell.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819914)
23 days ago
Reply to  Grinch

Goalkeeper was very accurate…I did plenty of Weapon Assessment analysis post engagements. A kill against a target is measured by getting a specific number of rounds withing a specific miss distance of the target. The post engagement assessments I did all achieved that or hit the target bob on! Goalkeeper also engaged at a longer range but as I have said before the gun mount, gun bay, equipment room and ancillary requirements gave it a huge onboard footprint.

CGH
CGH (@guest_819808)
24 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

The RN did purchase 11 Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS, 4 on each Type 22 batch 3 Frigates, 3 on HMS Illustrious & 2 each on HMS Albion & Bulwark Assault ships. In exchange the Dutch purchased RR Olympus gas turbines for their frigates. The Goalkeeper was highly effective, but very expensive to maintain, so was replaced by more 20mm Phalanx.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819824)
24 days ago
Reply to  CGH

It also wasn’t any more accurate at range than the Phalanx.

Don’t get me wrong Goalkeeper is a great system and the newer versions are very good but it is a big lump and deck penetrating as well as very expensive to run.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819999)
23 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

I think Goalkeeper was 35mm. Others gave answered on the move to Phalanx.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_820002)
23 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

30mm. The gun was part of the family of 30mm GAU-8 that’s in the A10 warthog.
I think the German millennium gun is perhaps 35mm from memory. The Italians had 40mm dardo or fast forty and the Spanish had the 12 gun beast CIWS. Can’t remember if it was 20 or 40mm but I will lead towards 20mm.

Last edited 23 days ago by Monkey spanker
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820038)
23 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Meroka was 20mm

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_820095)
23 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

The Italian Navy has decided to replace their Dardo “Fast Forties”. Which are a pair of twin mounted L70 40mm Bofors. Which had a combined rate of fire of between 600 to 900 rounds per minute (rpm), depending on the variant.

They have decided that for the CWIS role, the Leonardo/Oto 76 with programmable or guided ammunition is more preferable. As the effective range of the Fast Forty is about 4000m, whilst the 76 is over 8000m, even though it’s rate of fire, is a pedestrian 120 rpm.

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820071)
23 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

Apparently the Edwin van Der SAR can stop hypersonics too!

Ex_Service
Ex_Service (@guest_819951)
23 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

17th May 2024:
https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/1791458548955664773/photo/1

30mm not fitted port quarter (at least), suspect article is a copy and paste error, as isn’t the remote optical camera sight – which would be mounted atop the box forward of the door in the photo.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_821200)
19 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

if they ever get it to work.🤐🤐

Charles verrier
Charles verrier (@guest_819656)
24 days ago

This is a bit of a puff-piece isn’t it?

No discussion on why the Phalanx were removed in the first place (which is because we don’t have enough units to equip all ships, so they have to be shared).

Also – I thought the 30mm Bushmasters had been a ‘for but not with’ item. Are you reporting they are now fitted?

Coll
Coll (@guest_819756)
24 days ago

From what I have heard from a war studies professor, it’s to reduce maintenance from unnecessary exposure to sea air. i.e. reduced cost as well, I guess.

Charles verrier
Charles verrier (@guest_819856)
24 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Phalanx is a marine weapon – it really shouldn’t need coddling to that degree. This is cost saving at the expense of readiness, which is the real story here. PoW has to deploy at short notice (which happens) and went to sea minus CIWS, which should not have happened- even for an exercise.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_819659)
24 days ago

I really don’t know why the carriers ever deploy without these…not having what is essentially a minimum defensive suite fitted is not a clever idea in a modern world of asymmetric risks and nutters who are happy to book a ticket to paradise or even that in the worst case we could transition to war with a peer very quickly. I do wonder if it’s time to have something a bit more potent for the carriers self protection as well.. I know the argument for not having a missile armed carrier, but the addition of 57mm mk 3 with smart… Read more »

Last edited 24 days ago by Jonathan
John Clark
John Clark (@guest_819681)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Absolutely, I would be fitting 40mm mounts and dragon fire.

We need a longer range knock down punch than Phalanx…

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819700)
24 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Agree, 3-4 40mm would be a real uplift.

Jim
Jim (@guest_819710)
24 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Considering CAMM a is a cold gas launched weapon that can be incorporated anywhere and the Queen Elizabeth has the exact same radar as the T23 and T26 I should think CAMM integration woukd be a piece of piss on the QE, massively easier than Aster and much less of a smoke hazard.

CAMM would also give the Queen Elizabeth class a limited anti ship missile capability as well. It was planned to go on at the start of the program no idea when it drifted off the plan.

Grinch
Grinch (@guest_819748)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jim

You are misinformed, CAMM was never in plan for the carriers

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819825)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jim

In the initial high cost CGI’s of what became QEC there was ASTER and SAMPSON.

Never saw a version with Sea Ceptor as that didn’t exist at that time.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819915)
23 days ago
Reply to  Jim

Nothing is a piece of piss to integrate, and nothing is ever plug and play! Yes, QE has the same radar. Now where are you going to place the datalink domes so that they can maintain a 360deg coverage? QE doesn’t have a lot of spare upper deck space for aerial use. You need to consider mutual Interference from the data link domes to ships systems and the other way from ships systems to the data link domes. CAMM is cold launched, but it can still put crap out when you launch it, so it is a FOD hazard. Where… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_819752)
24 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Definitely
People complain about not having 30mm for boat defence or Phalanx for missile defence but with the T31 we have just ordered a system that should in theory be capable of both. 4 of them is 360 degree coverage out to 7km.
The only issue is that you need E/O turrets all over the place for targeting, whose effectiveness is uncertain in heavy weather. Someone really needs to develop a mini AESA panel that sits on top of the turret so that it can do its own targeting in all conditions.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_819811)
24 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Just read this back and if it’s not clear I am referring to the 40mm Bofors.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_819949)
23 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

We have. It’s called F35B with AMRAAM & ASRAAM. Carrier is are not big destroyers. And arw not operated like escorts.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819731)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Agree. I listen to the experts here re FOD and missiles and get that. But not guns. Fit them and every ESSM we can get.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819826)
24 days ago

I’d tend to agree wrt to getting the 40mm onboard.

There will be very heavy duty EW fitted already. QECs are so enormous that you can fit things so they are not on show behind a fire glass panel.

EW us one of the RN commandments…..thou shall not…..

maurice10
maurice10 (@guest_819673)
24 days ago

I get nervous looking at most carriers as they appear to be naked and vulnerable when not loaded with aircraft. Two phalanx per ship surely is not enough in terms of fending off drone swarms, maybe the new anti-drone systems need to be earmarked for QEs on an urgent basis? The worst scenario is when the QEs are in more confined locations such as fueling depots or dry docks and not protected by the usual envelope of protection.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819702)
24 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

And the CSG going through the Suez and the Gulf area! A huge floating slow moving target like all the container ships! It will have its own and protection by the CSG but in those confined waters with unfriendly forces on either side there’s some heightened level of risk there.

Last edited 24 days ago by Quentin D63
Jim
Jim (@guest_819711)
24 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

There is no way any naval vessels is going through the Suez Canal with Phalanx in engagement mode. That’s a good way to chop people up by accident with 20mm rounds.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819715)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jim

I’m sure naval ships would be spaced appropriately whether in a series line or in parallel type convoy. Operational range and arcs of fire of ciws would be known and they’d be confined limits and open limits. There’ll be options for ECM too. Yes, if space is very confined then you just can’t fire off where you want.

Last edited 24 days ago by Quentin D63
Deep32
Deep32 (@guest_819987)
23 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Hi Q, I think you will find that all warships/submarines are escorted through the Suez canal by Egyptian armed forces on either side of the canal. Leastways they always used to be, don’t think that that has changed but can’t be sure.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_820003)
23 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Thanks. I hadn’t thought about the actual Suez part bring under Egyptian control. We’ll have to wait an see if our Houthi friends take a shot at the CSG when transiting the Gulf, Red Sea area plus before that Russian forces and allies in Sudan and China in Djibouti. It will be interesting to see his China reacts to the next CSG transiting the SCS as well. Anyway, one year at a time! 😁

Martin L
Martin L (@guest_819753)
24 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

There are three locations on the QE class aircraft carriers for Phalanx the report doesn’t say how many are fitted but you do need three to cover all the angles.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819675)
24 days ago

Why were they re fitted, is it hot bedding with the CIWS, or were they re moved and up graded?.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_819680)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

They are pooled and rotated as needed – much easier to look after them on shore than at Sea.Maintenance and Upgrades are done ashore too.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819686)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Same thing but in Navy words, or better worded than I put it. Why? are that not enough to go around, that is normally MOD’s reason for not leaving kit in unit/aboard ship they cover it with a wall drivel such as of its better for up dates/maintenance etc, etc , etc

Jon
Jon (@guest_819688)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

It’s an interesting question whether, with the massive reduction in the number of RN/RFA ships, pooling and rotating Phalanx is still necessary. I can just about understand it while a ship is in long-term refit, but put them back before the ship is ready to be worked up.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819693)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jon

So it was done in the start to husband not enough to go around but like you say with ships paid off, laid up there should more than enough. I my stand corrected but did the Navy have only 43 any way. As new ships are built and fleet slowly grows more will I hope be added.
Any idea if Dragon Fly compliment CIWS or will ever replace it?

Steve
Steve (@guest_819703)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

If 43 were originally purchased, we have to assume the number still in service will be a lot lower, as it seems standard model to use existing models for spares rather than buying them.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819707)
24 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Ah the UK way, its great until you need them, and its good for cooking the books on how much kit we have, against what kit we have that works.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819716)
24 days ago
Reply to  Steve

And will they buy anymore if there’s not enough to go around?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819735)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

They were never fitted to the T22s B1B2 or the T23s so none available there.
T42s had 2 of them. Then carriers and assorted Amphib and RFA.
Are they still being built? Buy some.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819738)
24 days ago

Agreed buy some, why do the MOD etc do this smoke and mirrors over kit numbers its all great until its needed. Will need to buy more as the fleet grows or with the Navy just decide not equip some ships ever, For the cost of new ones seem little the cost of a sunk/damaged ship.
How ever we all know what will happen, as it always does, make do and mend.

Martin L
Martin L (@guest_819760)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

The fleet isn’t growing all the construction going on is only keeping numbers the “same” but modernising them. A proportion of these upcoming new vessels are getting 40mm guns which can fire pretty rapidly, several shells per second. These have the potential to be better than Phalanx as the shells could be programed to explode in proximity to the target without having to hit it. Proximity fuses were developed in the second world war for 5 or 5.5 inch guns using valve electronics. Modern electronics enable this to work in much smaller shells. If this works well I would guess… Read more »

Martin L
Martin L (@guest_819763)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin L

This gives a better impression of the current capability of the 40mm guns to be fitted to type 31

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-bofors-40mm-mk-4-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-31-frigates/

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819837)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Memories of ‘82 fading.

All the lessons of ‘82 were aggressively implemented including retiring useless systems.

That lead to Phalanx and Goalkeeper as well as Sea Wolf on T23.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819838)
24 days ago

History has a bad habit of repeating its self

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819836)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

T31 doesn’t have Phalanx

I’d be surprised if a lot of the new build ships do now that 40/57mm and DragonFire are a thing.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819839)
24 days ago

i have no idea if the 40/57mm is as good at CIWS, i hope its is.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_819860)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Better, I would say.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819863)
24 days ago

i do not know, as not previ to the weapons data etc, reaction time, range, ammo, ammo speed, sensers. elevation limits, slew rate. and so on.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_819871)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Conceptually and logically the idea of using longer ranged, more accurate and proximity fused shells to increase the probability of a hit to vital parts instead of chucking out bullets and hoping for a hit to the warhead makes sense and I am sure the Navy had a long think before deciding not to put Phalanx on T31.
That said neither concept has been put to the test in a peer action so we really don’t know

Martin
Martin (@guest_819874)
24 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Has a CIWS ever been proven in combat? And its too late to see what is best when at war, rather know before then, but why did Type 31 not get scaled for CIWS

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_819963)
23 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Russian CIWS seem to have failed miserably given how many of the Black sea fleet are resting on the sea bed. That may be system/ control failure or could be effective western ECM rendering them ineffective.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819975)
23 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Russian kit does seem to be all just show or at least most of it, but they will catch up on land after Ukraine gifted them at one type of all of the western kit sent them.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_820100)
23 days ago
Reply to  Martin

I need to double check, but I do believe the USS Carney (Arleigh Burke) destroyer, that has been patrolling the coast off Yemen. Is the first ship to prove that Phalanx is combat effective against maritime threats.

If I remember correctly a Houthis suicide drone managed to get past the ship’s SM2 and ESSM layers. Before being taken out by the Phalanx at 1.8km.

Martin
Martin (@guest_820102)
23 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

i do believe you are very much correct, proves it works as last line of defence, All i will say is every surface ship and RFA should have one including the river class, The the cost of a CIWS verses the cost of ship.
Never understood why those that run the navy can not see that, its not a heavy system

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819917)
23 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Babcock designed the T31 to deliver what the RN needed. That included the CIWS fit.
The RN agreed with what Babcock proposed.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_819961)
23 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Much bigger bang(Phalanx actually shoot sub caliber 0.5″ solid bullets that need to actually hit the target) & much longer range than Phalanx. Plus better surface target performance.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819976)
23 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

i think CIWS has had its day in it current form, just spray and pray is not a good defence and heavy in rounds. I do not see them being phased out for a long time but better is on its way.
Just not sure what that might be or is as its out side my kind of stuff.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_820146)
22 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Not how CIWS works.
The mount tracks the target.
You fire.
The mount then tracks the fired bullets and the target and via a loop tracking system reduces the error between the rounds and the target to zero.
At zero or near zero you hit the target.
Mount conducts threat evaluation, determines the target destroyed and moves on to the next one in the threat list.
That is all done in seconds few!

Martin
Martin (@guest_820156)
22 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Happy to have been corrected, I do like a subject real expert which i am not when comes to any thing painted grey.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819902)
23 days ago

Morning SB, interestingly the Babcock MRP stretched A140/T31 concept showed 2 side Phalanx’s as well as a single rear facing 40mm. The BMT Elliade concept shows 2 and 2 of each. They must be quite a combo to still be being considered?

Steve
Steve (@guest_819701)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

I guess the question is how many are there in total and what is their availability rate like. We would need to know this to understand in a war situation how many ships could be sent into harms way.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_819780)
24 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Babcock were awarded a 3 year maintenance contract in 2023 for up 41 systems with 9 overhaul and upgrades included.

Steve
Steve (@guest_819827)
24 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Sounds like there is enough to go around, as long as some aren’t also needed for the army for base defences. Maybe it is just keeping costs down by keeping them away from sea water as much as possible.

Oliver Gilkes
Oliver Gilkes (@guest_819721)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

That answers my question too. Thanks.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_819813)
24 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

OK, your explanation appears to be plausible, especially in regard to scheduled maintenance periods. However, don’t believe RN has yet adequately addressed appropriate defensive measures for capital vessels, especially QE class. As an absolute minimum, believe all of the 30 mm mounts, and Dragonfire, should be installed, as soon as feasible. In a significant naval engagement, it would be dangerous to assume escort vessels are uniformly invulnerable, and not themselves subject to battle damage or the prospect of being sunk. The blokes down at the Admiralty patently have to understand the concept of multiple defensive layers. Suspect this course of… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_819897)
23 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Actually, upon reflection, in the interest of full disclosure, must admit to an ulterior motive in recommending additional defensive measures for the QE class, in particular. If/when QE class deliberately and truly sail in harm’s way, the stated, coordinated policy is that there will be a USMC aviation contingent aboard (~250 personnel during CSG21). HMG/MoD is certainly w/in rights to arm RN vessels as deemed advisable, assuming the concomitant safety/survival risks to RN personnel, but when American (principally USMC) personnel are aboard, request every measure be taken to enhance probability of survival. 🤔😳🤞🙏

Martin
Martin (@guest_819977)
23 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

We do not have the kit or the money and QE class may get dragon Fly but that is it, nothing mid or long range. Easy space to fit it but no money and no in service request to do so.

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820083)
23 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

They will be equipped with sling shots and bows and arrows

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_820129)
23 days ago
Reply to  Arson Fire

😁🤔😳☹️

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_820109)
23 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

If I remember correctly from certain literature and documentaries. Anything below 40mm proved useless at stopping a Kamikaze! Only the higher punch of the 40mm and 3”/4.5”/5”/5.25” guns had the explosive content enough to damage the attacking aircraft and literally stop it dead. By causing a catastrophic failure in the structure. Reports showed that anything smaller, such as the 20mm Oerlikon. We’re very good at punching holes in the aircraft. But not sufficient enough to stop it flying or diving at the ship. Just goes to show, that perhaps we should pay more respect to the lessons learned during combat.… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_820122)
23 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Yes, certainly, by all means, either 40 mm, 57 mm, or even 76 mm mounts, provided the budget and capability of ship’s infrastructure to accommodate the system(s). The more, the merrier, and presumably the more combat effective. Installing 30 mm at the preplanned points, even on an interim basis, would be the minimalist approach, but surely more effective than shaking one’s fist and cursing at approaching threats?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_820128)
23 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Davey,

BTW, virtually certain that current state of UK forces, is primarily, if not completely, related to budget shortfalls. It’s not that MoD leadership does not recognize the issues, they simply don’t have the funds available to address them simultaneously. Unfortunately, their masters in Parliament fail to recognize the parallels between the 2020’s and the 1930’s. IMHO, the close reading of W.S. Churchill’s memoirs (especially The Gathering Storm) by all MPs, w/ accompanying examinations, would be an appropriate primer for foreign policy. Those who simply cannot grasp the parallels, should be encouraged to seek alternative career paths. 🤔😳

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820188)
22 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

40mm were also not good enough. the ideal weapon for anti kamikaze in WW2 was the 3″, now technology can change this, No VT possible for 40mm in WW2.

After war this gun started to be developed by US and UK(from wiki):

Development of the 3″/70 Mark 26 gun began from observations by the US Navy that the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon and the Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns were too small to ‘kill-stop’ Japanese kamikaze aircraft.

If Royal Navy had this gun (Tiger cruiser) modernised and widespread at time of Falklands the mistakes would have been less costly.

Simon
Simon (@guest_819799)
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin

I’ve collected 4 tents in the loft for hiking or camping there’s a difference. I don’t have 4 sets of tent pegs.

Martin
Martin (@guest_819978)
23 days ago
Reply to  Simon

that is how our pooling works fine as long not every one wants kit then not enough its just bluff accounting making it look like we have enough we we all know that is a lie.

Drew murrY
Drew murrY (@guest_819712)
24 days ago

Should have been fitted at the start

Oliver Gilkes
Oliver Gilkes (@guest_819718)
24 days ago

Is it normal to dismount and refit such weapon systems, or is it just our penurious position? Just want to know.

Oliver Gilkes
Oliver Gilkes (@guest_819723)
24 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

My question seems to be answee above. Its both.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819918)
23 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

Yes. Phalanx goes into and comes out of a pool of mounts. The mounts undergo periodic maintenance and upgrading so you need to take them off and put them in the workshop. Not having them fitted 24/7 is a decision made by Fleet HQ. It also covers other systems that nobody sees on the upper deck but are fitted to internal systems. Special Fit kit that interfaces to wider data sources and systems onboard and external to the vessel. They will look at the risk matrix and ask things like Do you need them fitted sailing around doing a WESTLANT… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_819965)
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Yes, we all know any enemy will considerately avoid attacking until exercises & refits are over! You never really know when you will need them.
Didn’t many Russian units go from exercises directly into invading UKR? In 1982 didn’t many of the fleet warships go direct from Springtrain exercise to dash south for the Falklands?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_820148)
22 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Yes they did go from Springtrain. But nobody had CIWS then and FTR with optional extras wasn’t really a thing until afterwards when the RN realised that extras need fitting in areas where the threat level is high. I went to the Falklands in early 83 as an 18yr old baby tiff on Brilliant. There were no real optional extras then except for extra DC equipment. Some mods had been done to allow SCOT to be crash stopped and mods done to ESM kit but that was about it. Few years on (5yrs) I was on a T42 going to… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_819964)
23 days ago
Reply to  Oliver Gilkes

HMG playing “Russian Roulette” with our few naval assets.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_819728)
24 days ago

I hear Bells…
I don’t get why CIWS isn’t standard across the fleet.
MoD are spending a billion on R&D ing a Hypersonic missile that may never see the light of day, that money should cover it with plenty of change?
Assume no issues integration wise as a bolt on system? GB could confirm.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819919)
23 days ago

Fitting kit is managed by Fleet HQ as a requirement (or not!) for the tasks you are doing

As I said you don’t need it for WESTLANT.
You don’t need Torp Decoy System either on WESTLANT
You dont need some of the internal special fit kit either.

John
John (@guest_819729)
24 days ago

Deploying any ship without minimum defensive armament is criminal. Any CDS worth their pips or stripes should refuse to deploy without. Sadly since Blairs day the brass have been a collection of arse lickers. Too interested in Rainbow initiatives and self advancement. End of mini observation.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819921)
23 days ago
Reply to  John

So doing a 3 month trip to CONUS for fly the flag and carrier land ons needs everything fitted?
Nope it doesnt.

Going on a 6 month deployment where you sail past or into know threat areas then yes it does need fitting and you do get the kit fitted. Not all the Gucci kit is visible on the upper deck. Most of it isn’t visible and is equally if not more important to have up and running than stuff that goes whoosh and bang.

John
John (@guest_819923)
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

You are a very triggered person eh? Obviously not aware kit can be redeployed quickly because situations can arise unexpectedly. Evidence 1982. This particular incidence arises from incompetence, lack of foresight. No excuse, go have a lie down son. Then read some military history 😙

Last edited 23 days ago by John
Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819942)
23 days ago
Reply to  John

?? Triggered? If you mean I used to pull them as an operator and maintainer then yes As for having a lie down…I am no longer a WE so I don’t need to do that anymore😏 I will forget my 34 years as a Weapon Engineer in the RN then. Forget about the multiple deployments where we got kit fitted for those deployments and not fitted for others. Running an FTR log for the optional extras we could get at short notice. As for fitting additional kit at short notice …I did some of that in 82 and a lot… Read more »

John
John (@guest_819948)
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

As I said. Triggered. You should have tried light infantry lol!

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819958)
23 days ago
Reply to  John

My knees are bad enough after all those decks and ladders over the years. Mincing around at 140 paces per min would have been even worse.
Anyway Matelots bimble not march.

cjh
cjh (@guest_819737)
24 days ago

A thought. Unresearched but based on a little knowledge, which as we all know can be a dangerous thing! Phalanx and CIWS are all based on chucking a wall of lead or depleted uranium into the path of oncoming aerial threats but are essentially short range defensive weapons. If the incoming “threat” is hypersonic or travelling at high speed, how far would the debris from it carry forward if the “threat” were hit and broken up? Lots of lumps of hot metal whizzing past your lugoles can’t be much fun?

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_819781)
24 days ago
Reply to  cjh

To be honest…someone throwing hypersonic missiles at the carrier is not the high or likely risk…that would only happen if we were essentially heading to WW3 and in that case the carrier would be surrounded by very high end AAW vessels as no close in weapon system you could fit to the carrier is ever managing a hypersonic missile ( engage time is to short and even if you destroy the missile your still get it by the same level of kinetic energy as an intercity 125 driving into you. The close in weapon systems for the carrier during peace… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_819875)
24 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

In terms of the kinetic energy argument against Phalanx, surely the solution is to leave the missile as a cohesive body and try to divert it? I thought part of the idea with the proximity fused 40mm is that the fragmenting pellets knock out sensors and control surfaces. I struggle to visualise physics at that speed but would the turning effect of having one fin knocked off, say, a Kalibr and the seeker disabled 4km from the ship be enough to cause a miss? Or would the missile just sideslip into the ship due to the enormous momentum? In that… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_820017)
23 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

All RN Warships are extensively equipped with ECM and Decoys specifically to try and divert any Missiles from hitting them.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_820126)
23 days ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

If we are talking about Russian missiles as the threat. The war in Ukraine has shown that most Russian weapons, do not seem to use an effective insensitive munition (IM). By Western Standards IMs are very difficult to initiate from hot splinters or direct bullet strikes. There are many video clips of attacks on Russian equipment and missiles in storage. Showing massive detonation when hit by MLRS, suicide drone etc. It’s wrong to assume, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest the majority of Russian Weapons don’t use IM. Which could mean a direct hit from a… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_819967)
23 days ago
Reply to  cjh

Phalanx is pretty short ranged, so yes, dangerous debris would likely still hit. That’s one argument for heavier caliber AA with far longer ranged exploding proximity shells like 40mm.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_819990)
23 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Italians stopped fielding their dual 40mm Breda Bofors and went all in with 76mm guided rounds.

Seeing how T31 have only optical sights for guns i don’t believe they are primarily build for anti missile function.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_820127)
23 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

The guns are also directed from the ship’s NS100 radar.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820270)
22 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Which is not permanently tracking the target since it rotates.

One example the French have only optical directors in their FREMM ASW, but added a radar director to their recent FREMM DA

Bob clark
Bob clark (@guest_819741)
24 days ago

Both UK aircraft carriers are obsolete unreliable and under armed another example of the incompetence of the royal navy we saw what happened in the Falklands and they did not immerge with much credit and lots of coverups has Sheffield prime! Example

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819754)
24 days ago

What is meant by ‘once again’ having Phalanx fitted? It was fitted, then removed then re-fitted? Why would that be?

Coll
Coll (@guest_819757)
24 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

From what I have heard from a war studies professor, it’s to reduce maintenance from unnecessary exposure to sea air. i.e. reduced cost as well, I guess.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_819888)
23 days ago
Reply to  Coll

What would a boffin know? Kit on the deck of a warship should be marinised.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819932)
23 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

So bolt a marinised mount to the upper deck and leave it there for 15 years? Not how it works. Every bit of RN kit has a planned maintenance regime derived from Reliability Centred Maintenace analysis. You work out mean time between failures of sub systems to determine how often time wise you could lose the entire system and how long for. From that you determine that taking a mount off at a low threat time of the ships programme, renewing parts, doing a strip down etc means that the MTBF remains small and availability remains high. 20mm and 30mm… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_820009)
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

GB, your ticking lots of boxes here! Like it!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820221)
22 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Thanks GB. Very interesting. Interesting that every piece of kit in the RN is subject to a maintenance regime derived from RCM, which you will know has a very long and proud heritage in the aircraft world particularly. When I was in REME (1975-2009) we were still only doing RCM on land equipments in a tokenist way much to my annoyance as a chartered engineer. Clearly marine equipment in exposed positions will be well covered by water-proof covers when not in use (I presume). But the details you provide about the maintenance regime are very informative. I presume this practice… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_820352)
21 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Prior to RCM we did planned maint. You did the maint IAW a ridgid timetable. Some of that involved removing equipment stripping it down and rebuilding it….just because it said to do it not because it needed it. RCM examines MTBF and lets you see when you should do maint to preserve availability. It also stops you needing to have expensive spares sat on a shelf for years that are not needed for defect repair but for unneeded maint tasks. For example, some maint tasks that where yearly strip downs went out to 3 yearly without affecting availability of the… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820608)
21 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Thanks GB. Great to hear how the Navy created a maint policy based on RCM principles. I recall a maintenance practice that we adopted from my REME days. The introduction of Oil Health Monitoring (OHM) in the Chally 2 and CRARRV fleets. We teamed with a specialist commercial company. Oil samples were periodically taken from in-situ Engines and Major Assemblies (E&MAs), analysed by the commercial company who informed us of the presence of metallic particles by quantity and type. We could then determine what internal part was wearing excessively or whose surface was breaking up and the second line REME… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_820123)
23 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

We all saw how well that process worked for the Russians. 8 CIWS on Moskva of which 7 didn’t work anymore.
There is nothing that can be left outside for 30 years and then expect to work as intended every time.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820295)
22 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

The Russians are not known for their maintenance. I wasn’t suggesting that Phalanx was, or should be, maintenance-free or that all maintenance should be done in situ. More, that I was puzzled that weather-facing equipment was removed for maintenance but not immediately replaced by a fit ‘spare’ unit to maintain the ship’s capability, especially if that ship were one of only 2 in the fleet. That is a huge limitation on maintaining availability. In REME we would term something such as Phalanx as a Repairable. If we took out a Repairable and it was going to be away for a… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820039)
23 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Is that why we are seeing all those ships without 57, 76, 114, 127mm guns?

Ups!! we are not, the guns are always there..

Derek Allen
Derek Allen (@guest_819775)
24 days ago

Check the heading. It has an unexpected ‘has’ in it.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_819776)
24 days ago

Other nations seem to have there carriers Armed what’s our excuse ?

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_819969)
23 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

We’re tight!

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_819981)
23 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

That’s the answer I was looking for 🤗

Arson Fire
Arson Fire (@guest_820089)
23 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

I think bankrupt is a more accurate description

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_819782)
24 days ago

We have to remember that prince of wales wasn’t meant to take deploy when she rushed out to cover the other carrier. The ship would have had its guns taken off when it went for maintenance at rosyth. They would then be fitted before scheduled deployments.
Now whether the guns should be fitted before the ship leaves a shipyard is another question

RB
RB (@guest_819785)
24 days ago

I doubt if the DS-30M’s have been fitted, last I heard they were in storage pending fitting to the early T26s. It seemed to have been decided that the upgraded Phalanx 1B can cover most of their intended role, thus saving some money and manpower. But maybe recent events have changed thinking, and some extra self defence firepower for the QEC might now be a good idea after all. Notable silence (official or unofficial leaks) on the likely constitution of CSG25. Seems set to be much less impressive than CSG25. Almost certainly no RFA Fort Victoria. Possibly only one T45… Read more »

Patrick
Patrick (@guest_819798)
24 days ago
Reply to  RB

With all the t23s being cut, that should free up a few 30mm guns.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819903)
23 days ago
Reply to  Patrick

True, and CAMM, Stingray and Wildcats!! 😁

Darryl2164
Darryl2164 (@guest_819793)
24 days ago

Hope to see PoW back at sea soon . Any news on when QE will rejoin the fleet

Paul42
Paul42 (@guest_819867)
24 days ago
Reply to  Darryl2164

It’s gone very quiet about QE. No news on what they found when she was dry docked, or what it will cost to fix? Will they bring forward her scheduled refit? It makes sense to do so.

dc647
dc647 (@guest_819800)
24 days ago

Why bother they are not going to need the amount of time they are going to be in for repair £7billion wasted money the government and the mod don’t realise we are not a global superpower anymore, the money would have been better use to equip our personal with better equipment for use in conflicts at home and within the geographical area of Europe which we don’t need aircraft carriers for. The only time aircraft carriers would be needed if we went up against China and they would last about 2 minutes because we don’t have the surface fleet to… Read more »

Last edited 24 days ago by dc647
Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819934)
23 days ago
Reply to  dc647

Are you Lewis Page ?
Same tripe different moniker.

dc647
dc647 (@guest_820114)
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

No it’s not tripe it’s a fact ! If you think this country is a global superpower you’re very blinked. We don’t need aircraft carriers we need a well equipped force for battles closer to home. What is going on in Ukraine is what this country should be concerned about now and in the past when these white elephants were signed off. Conflicts in Europe do not require aircraft carriers, the only reason we have them is not to poke the bear but to poke the panda you tell me what Conflicts will the UK need aircraft carriers there is… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_820124)
23 days ago
Reply to  dc647

When did you serve? what units and when?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_820226)
22 days ago
Reply to  dc647

Possession of a carrier or two does not make a country a superpower. France, India, Italy, Spain and others have carriers or flat tops such as LPDs that can carry aircraft – and they are not superpowers.

We have carriers because we are a globally connected maritime nation, with interests and allies around the world. We may need to project a land forces or naval forces expeditionary force overseas that requires air cover.

I agree with you that we also need well equipped armed forces for operations near-home ie Europe and the Middle East.

dc647
dc647 (@guest_820115)
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

We need to concentrate on land forces, aircraft, Nuclear subs not two mobile airfields

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_820353)
21 days ago
Reply to  dc647

Land forces ? Why?
Lets take Ukr. its 1500 miles from the UK by road or rail for a Land Force to get there.
Germany and Poland are better placed to deal with that than the UK. UK should provide specialist and niche capabilities and some land force to work with them.

Should Poland and Germany not also concentrate on Fleet air defence and ASW in the maritime realm? (They dont)

Carriers allow you to control a massive area bubble at sea and overland especially if friendly ports and airbases are not available.

P Smith
P Smith (@guest_819806)
24 days ago

Is the CIWS from QNLZ being cross decked onto PWLS? About time RN stopped sitting on the fence and actually installed Small Calibre Guns onto the vacant sponsons.

Nevis
Nevis (@guest_819820)
24 days ago

Could the RFDEW fit on the carriers? At 10p a shot surely it’s a must!

RobN
RobN (@guest_819849)
24 days ago

Yes I am a bit sceptical about the 40mm. I thought they were fitted for but not with the 30s. The for but not with is another way of saying the NoD are penny pinching on their most important ships. They are also skimping on Phalanx the original intent was to fit four one at each corner as the design intended. But again they cut corners and only fitted three. Although there is 360 coverage it is weak on the aft starboard quarter. Also by not having the extra mount you are reducing the number of targets you can engage… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_819904)
23 days ago
Reply to  RobN

This has been said by others here too. While we’re waiting for the T45 upgrades to finish and the T83 ages away there’s always an option for extra 2-3 AAW T31s or just the same type T31s, all with a decent suite of CAMM/CAMM-ER/MR at least. Not too radical.

Last edited 23 days ago by Quentin D63
Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_819936)
23 days ago
Reply to  RobN

Thats not how Phalanx or any CIWS works in a multi mount fit. 3 Phalanx cover 360 degs and give hemispherical coverage. When active and turning and burning all the mounts “Talk” to each other and generate a Threat Evaluation table between them. The table prioritises all inbound targets actually threatening the ship(ignoring crossing targets or targets that are out of range) and allocates a mount with the best chance of engaging and killing the target or targets It stops 2 mounts going for the same target. The designated mount fires and keeps firing until it does a self-assessment that… Read more »

Simon
Simon (@guest_820014)
23 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Nice summary, like how it’s determines a kill and stops firing. and is it correct to say that the system anticipates the trajectory of incoming projectiles in order meet it with defensive firepower. Not where it’s at now but will once firepower will make contact.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_820149)
22 days ago
Reply to  Simon

Yes . It looks at the tracks . If it works out that its a threat to the ship it goes for it. If a track is heading to the ship but assessed as being outside the threat bubble ie it will pass ahead or astern by a large enough factor it will ignore it.

Adam
Adam (@guest_819901)
23 days ago

Might PoW be getting the 4x 30mm DS30M guns from HMS Westminster and HMS Argyll..?

PWLScrewman
PWLScrewman (@guest_819957)
23 days ago

The QEC carriers were designed and are fitted for the 30mm however none have ever been fitted and as far as I’m aware there is no plan to fit them, the minigun is also now out of service with the royal having been replaced by 12.7mm HMGs.

Chris Lightowler
Chris Lightowler (@guest_819980)
23 days ago

“challenge the international order”

Out of curiosity, who determines that order exactly?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_820010)
23 days ago

Isn’t it “We” in the West?

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_820040)
23 days ago

New York Time and the Democratic Party.

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_820280)
22 days ago

The QE class we designed to have 4 x Phalanx and 4x 30mm. Thanks to penny pinching it has only got 3 Phalanx. It is the weakest armament on any NATO carrier. Like US carriers it should have a full complement of Phalanx and 30mm plus a missile. The US has ESSM and RAM. The French carrier has ASTER 15. Other European carriers have a gun and missile fit. We should fit Sea Ceptor to the carriers. This would give them a good air defence capability against ASMs and a limited ability agains small surface targets. The point is a… Read more »

Df j
Df j (@guest_820284)
22 days ago

Soviet doctrine was to nuke carrier groups in the event of war. This made air defence irrelevant.

The expectation was that Western Europe apart from France and UK would be devastated by tactical nukes with France and UK left out because we had nukes.

The US carrier groups would all be nuked apart from those in the US home ports.

Carriers are irrelevant in a peer war.

DJ
DJ (@guest_821667)
17 days ago
Reply to  Df j

You are assuming a peer war will be directly fought between the majors. This is in my view unlikely, as a nuclear outcome that no-one wins is then a real possibility. What is more likely is a contained conventional war fought elsewhere. ie Falklands & Ukraine type situations. If Taiwan or SCS goes hot, it does not mean that US will start bombing Peking or that Peking will start bombing Tokyo. It’s more likely to be fought in the SCS, ECS, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam. In such a war, carriers are not going to be transiting the Taiwan straight, they will… Read more »

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_821197)
19 days ago

it should say has real teeth fitted.

Stephen Hamblen
Stephen Hamblen (@guest_826041)
33 minutes ago

I’m no defence analyst, I’m just an enthusiast, but to me, it seems that leaving a pair of £3.2 billion carriers WITHOUT adequate air defence missiles is a tad on the risky side. I’m sure that the defence bods will come out and mention the extremely capable Type 45’s with their large supply of expensive air defence missiles and also the frigates with their Sea Ceptors are more than capable of taking care of our prize assets but I’m not buying it…….. at all!! The QE Class must be the only large flat tops without their own toys to throw… Read more »