Aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth has used a Phalanx gun to ‘shoot down’ an aerial target as part of a training exercise.

The Phalanx Close-In Weapons System is designed for use as an anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence.

https://twitter.com/HMSQNLZ/status/1370442865185333252

The system is radar-controlled and is said to provide a ‘last chance’ defence for ships against anti-ship missiles and aircraft.

The following excellent graphic from navylookout.com, I recommend you follow @NavyLookout on Twitter if you don’t already, shows the coverage arc for the three systems fitted to the carrier.

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion - Page 321 - UK Defence Forum
Image via savetheroyalnavy.org

Phalanx automatically detects, tracks and engages threats. It features a 20mm M-61A1 cannon, search and track radar and Forward Looking InfraRed sensors on the Block 1B model.

To date, the United States Navy and 20 other nations have purchased more than 850 Phalanx systems.

What’s next for HMS Queen Elizabeth?

The Ministry of Defence say that HMS Queen Elizabeth’s Carrier Strike Group’s capabilities will be on show during Exercise ‘Strike Warrior’, which will take place off the coast of Scotland in May.

HMS Queen Elizabeth (and 15 F-35B jets) sailing with HMS Defender, HMS Diamond, HMS Northumberland, HMS Kent, RFA Fort Victoria and RFA Tideforce in addition to the USS The Sullivans and Dutch vessel HNLMS Evertsen.

The UK-led war-fighting exercise, including several other NATO navies, will be the final test for the Carrier Strike Group before it undertakes its maiden deployment.

The Ministry of Defence say that the deployment is expected to include two Type 45 Destroyers, two Type 23 Frigates, two Royal Fleet Auxiliary logistics vessels and a submarine in addition to an American destroyer and potentially other allied vessels.

Commodore Steve Moorhouse, Commander UK Carrier Strike Group, said:

“The new UK Carrier Strike Group is the embodiment of British maritime power, and sits at the heart of a modernised and emboldened Royal Navy. Protected by a ring of advanced destroyers, frigates, helicopters and submarines, and equipped with fifth generation fighters, HMS Queen Elizabeth is able to strike from the sea at a time and place of our choosing; and with our NATO allies at our side, we will be ready to fight and win in the most demanding circumstances. Carrier Strike offers Britain choice and flexibility on the global stage; it reassures our friends and allies and presents a powerful deterrent to would-be adversaries.”

After the work-up trial off the west Hebrides range, HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group will head to the Pacific.

George Allison
George Allison
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
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

92 COMMENTS

      • Apparently not. There was an article recently on Navy Lookout that indicates that the RN was not going to take it forward. No indication why, sadly…

        Cheers CR

        • That’s what I read as well. Can’t remember which article it was unfortunately but the Navy apparently felt that the Martlet coaxial mounts didn’t really increase the firepower of the 30 mm that much for the reason you stated. It’s not a fire-and-forget system but needs a continuous illumination of the target until impact thus restricting the movement of the gun whilst engaging. If they (i.e. the missiles and the laser emitter) were mounted separately from the gun however….

          … or we invested in some Martlet armed S-100 UAVs to augment our Wildcats however (assuming they survive the Integrated Review).

    • Sadly SVRN -> NL publicised those ages ago so nothing secret there……

      I’m pretty sure Vlad & Xi’s gangs can surf so no secrets to protect.

      Let’s hope the next articles is about 30mm…..

      And the one after about a new unknown all defeating……sorry came to my senses there….and saw an image of Max Hastings with a 25mm steel plate welded to his head standing in the drink with a Harrier landing on top of it…..he does have a big head…..I’m sure he liberated Stanley all by himself armed with a biro…..

  6. It’s going to be a very interesting decade in the indo-pacific that’s for sure.

    “The US Army is moving forward with plans to gain a better footing in Asia, in part, by building out a multi-domain task force (MDTF) outfitted with land-based, deep strike capabilities. Past service leaders had floated the idea that the uninhabited, Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands, known in China as the Diaoyu Islands, would be a prime spot for some of these soldiers and weapons, but Army Chief of Staff General James McConville said more diplomatic work is needed before a decision is finalised.”

    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-awaiting-diplomatic-stationing-decision-for-indo-pacific-mdtf

    • US army will say and do anything to avoid massive budget cuts right now, I have noticed many of these pieces over the last few days.

  7. I am not going to repost the simple maths I used to when I questioned the performance of the Phalanx. Can’t be bothered with inviting the condescending comments to be repeated.
    But maybe it is worth considering what Navy Lookout said.
    Quote, “Gun-based CWIS has its limitations when faced with the increasing speeds of modern missiles such as BrahMos, Sunburn or Zircon….Assuming the CIWS manages to break up the missile somewhere under 1km before impact, then the ship may still be sprayed with high-velocity fragments. This is obviously preferable to the intact missile impacting and detonating deep inside the ship but deadly fragments are likely to disable delicate sensors and penetrate the light steel plate of modern warships. Phalanx may prevent the loss of the ship but may not be able to stop it from becoming eliminated as an effective fighting unit.”
    This is almost exactly what I was saying but my post was shot down by people who refused to even consider the question.
    If the Phalanx is still relevent at the top end, why has the US Navy decided NOT to equip their new destoryers and frigates with the system?

    • Unfortunately its very likely that you are going to catch shrapnel when hitting a target travelling at high speed. Except for hitting the target further out with a missile, you will always suffer the same issues when using a gun system. Shrapnel isn’t guaranteed though. Hitting a control surface or punching a hole in a Mach speed target will make it ditch or shred itself which should stop it hitting you.

      I was lucky(If that’s the right saying!) to be on a T22 conducting the first Seawolf V Exocet shoot in 83. The first missile proximity detonated and shredded control surfaces making it break up, the second missile hit the motor section. On other vessels armed with Phalanx and Goalkeeper we hit and destroyed low level height keeper targets when ever we shot at them. A T42 ( Not the one I was on) did hit and snap the tow wire of the target and it then flew on into an engine intake causing some damage and a small fire ( Target had flares fitted) . So yes its likely you will get damage.

      If you are hit Its what you then do to get back the systems that counts. Battle damage repair (BDR) and using reversionary modes are all well practised in the RN. BDR is a skill in its own right. Prioritising repairs in line with the Captains priorities and knowing what you can give the operators back and how long it will take are all factored in.

      So if the immediate threat is air launched ASMs you are not worried about getting the sewage system, passageway lighting, Sonar or underwater telephone back. But if you know either by your own sensors or data link that a raid is building a few hundred Km away you will want propulsion , power generation, chilled water, EW, Radar, Wind Speed and direction, Command System , Soft and hard kill back. If you cannot get them back the Command needs to know what it can do and what restrictions there are limiting your fighting options.

      Jumping back to Phalanx, it being pretty much self contained is its advantage. 440v and seawater for cooling are all that are needed. So its fed via Auto changeover switches for power, has two seperate water supplies and you can also BDR alternative supplies to it. All mounts conduct threat evaluation between them and work out which mount has the best kill percentage chance. In Auto mode there is no user input except to stop an engagement….human decision making is to slow. It has good magazine depth with more rounds on mount ready to reload and ready use reloads close by in deck lockers.

      Compared to other systems they all have pros and cons. Magazine depth for say a RAM launcher is a big con…you cannot easily reload it. It is a homing missile so it needs to see the target. On a 40mm if you have an offmount director there is more to break…lose the director and the gun is useless.

      It’s all part of a layered defence strategy. Keep the targeting assets , vessels and shooters well away and you don’t need to worry about the missiles. When they do come in its long range missiles medium range missiles, ECM, Decoys and then the guns.

      • Very interesting and knowledgeable post. I remember Seawolf was touted as a super weapon when it first came into service. They had mixed results in the Falklands conflict-what did you think of it as a weapons system?
        I remember a well known incident in the Falklands when a destroyer and frigate were on picket somewhere off the Falklands and came under attack from Argie Seahawks. One ship was lost and one badly damaged. Apparently there was radar interference from one ship to the next destroying the guidance systems of bot units and leaving them basically defenceless against the attack.

          • Hi Daniele-thanks for jogging my memory. i remember readinga harrowing account of the incident from one of the Captains

          • Hi Geoff This was a sad series of events. The Type 22/42 trap concept failed due to human error. Coventry cut accros Broadsword’s bow, breaking seawolf radar lock. I believe this was an attempt by Coventry to presents a smaller target to the incoming Skyhawk raid. The rest is history.

        • It was a very good system – probably the best out there.

          The UK’s foreign sales of missiles were destroyed by a lot of the post Falklands myths about missile performance.

          Seawolf was really under development went it was sent down there. SeaDart Mod1 was also immature and not controlled with terribly good radar or computers.

          So unfortunately they both got a much poorer reputation than they should have.

          Just as Exocet got an unjustified reputation and massive export success.

          This hindered attempts to develop more advanced systems.

          What was little known and not much advertised was the enormous upgrades, software on both and radar on 42, to both systems over the years.

          Missile development is now rather different as the actual guidance computers, servos and software modules are pretty much off the shelf. Digital simulations also provide a much faster and cheaper route to solutions.

          In yesteryear, everything was developed from scratch and had to be made to work together so the project costs, scope and timetable were hard to nail down.

          • I cannot think of a single system then or now that can detect, track and shoot down a 4.5 inch sized shell with a missile….

            Seadart got a huge upgrade and went to a fully auto loading system. No man in the loop to move the missiles, it just kept putting them on the launcher and firing them. 909 Tracker upgrades, ADAWS, missile fuzing all had huge upgrades. Also and probably more importantly was the Damage Control lessons for Uniforms, Equipment and ship design. T23 , T45 and T26 do and will all have lessons learnt from the Falklands to make them more survivable following a hit.

          • Sorry I think we are at crossed purposes: I wasn’t suggesting that Dart should have been able to hit a 4.5″ shell?

            Yes, I am well aware of the survivability and damage control upgrades. For my sins that was my work for some years.

        • As i remember that was not the case , the so – called Type 64 Combo had proved to be effective in the days before the Coventry Sinking and earlier on that fateful day.What happened on the last Raid was that the Argentinians changed Tactics,their A4’s Approached from Land (Pebble Island ) and Coventry’s Sea Dart Radar got confused with background Clutter.rendering it ineffective.Broadswords Seawolf got a Lock on the incoming Skyhawks but its Computers crashed at a critical moment, they had to be reset manually,and they again got a Lock but Coventry executed an Evasive Manouver which cut accross Broadsword and yet again broke the Lock of the Seawolf,the rest as they say is History.

          • The critical bit to add to that salient summary, is that the pulsed doppler radar on the T22 (Broadsword) was actually capable of discriminating against the clutter.

            So actually the T64 combo should have been jolly good IF the T22 has stayed landslide of the T42.

            It would be wrong to confuse the T42 radars of ’82 with the later systems which were much much better in every respect.

          • Yes its a shame the Falklands Conflict became a Double Edged Sword for British Missile Systems,Vastly Improved due to the Experience Gained but Fewer Takers because of the Bad Reports.

          • BUT if Coventry/Broadsword had been fitted with PHX would the bombers got thru. keep it simple. and adapt in war

          • There is a Picture somewhere of a Skyhawk Attacking HMS Coventry Beam On ( think thats the correct Naval Term ) – Meat and Drink to a Phalanx,but the Bombs that Sunk her went in her Portside Fwd,at an Angle,but still within a CIWS Firing Arc.The Exocet that Hit Sheffield again would be easily Dealt with had Phalanx been fitted.

          • That’s why post Falklands T42 was fitted with Phalanx. That is a whole other story on the issues that caused. Huge increase in top weight, ballast down bellow to compensate and as a result the waterline was suddenly a couple of feet from the quarterdeck. Brum also developed a strange corkscrew in heavy weather that was an interesting experience…not least during the Great Storm which was “interesting” for some of the angles we went over at.

        • Who remembers the number of times a Sea Dart just about cleared the launcher and either dropping like a stone or going bang, keep it simple RN shooting expensive missiles @ play targets is not good for budget, they dont like PHX as its a service item, shoot it needs a service.

          • Dart was a technological stretch when it started out. Some of the reliability issues were down to the sheer length of development: so older technologies were used.

            It is the problem sometimes to be the technological initiators as oppssed to the perfectors.

            Wolf started when certain technologies were mature enough to to be properly understood.

          • ???
            Shoot anything and it needs cleaning afterward. Plus all the usual daily, weekly, monthly, 3, 6, 12 ,18, 24 Monthly maintenance. Thats what being a Tiff was all about. Maintain it, fix it when it was duff, keep it going anyway you can when its needed. The stuff and the methods used to keep kit working until we got spares was best left well away from my Boss. He knew it was working but he didn’t “need to know why it was still working” (although he did in reality and fully supported the dubious engineering solutions we used.

        • Seawolf was to put it technically, S**T Hot at dropping small fast missile like targets and aircraft out to around 6 miles. Seawolf VL was even better out to an even further range.
          On the T22 967 Radar you could see individual shells leaving a gun barrel. Trackers would lock them up and then bang fire the missile, drop the shell.
          There were issues with it in the Falklands but mostly software related and we proved those as fixed in the Exocet shoot off of Aberporth ranges in early 83. Hawks flying Argentinian attack profiles no longer caused issues. LLHK Rustons dropped every time and finally dropping the second Exocet fired by HMS JUPITER. the first Exocet was locked up and was tracked , we where about to fire when it passed the target barge and locked us up instead!. Its worrying watching a missile turn in towards you on the Tracker TV screen. Just before we shot, range safety blew it up…pity because we had it nailed and would have dropped it anyway.
          Next day we dropped the second one without an issue.

          For Broadsword and Coventry the issue was Coventry crossing ahead of Broadsword and forcing the trackers to break lock. Broadsword had a firing solution and would have dropped the FGAs if Coventry had stayed clear. Radar interference was never an issue.Then and now all trackers, guidance links and radars are given slightly differing frequencies to avoid mutual interference issues.

          • Thanks Gunbuster for as always Five Star info. In general terms was it not a bad idea to stand Coventry and Broadsword so close together?

      • How do you see the threat posed by drones and loitering munitions? These seem like vertical dive bombs. Would the answer be missile or AA guns?

        • ECM Swarming Drones need a signal from the controller, and currently are too small to do mission-critical damage. bearing in mind the carriers are designed to withstand a kamikaze attack. but as drones get bigger and heavier they become an easy target

    • Yup, the 40mm and 57mm fitted to be fitted to the T31 and their guided rounds look pretty impressive, on paper at least…

      Cheers CR

        • Hi AlexS,

          Of course, you are correct. I read an article about the new 3P programmable fuze rounds a while ago – its an age thing…

          Cheers CR

      • But they have seperate directors , off mount for the most part, which is another thing to break when you need it most.

        • It is the Phalanx that have an extra search radar not the 57 or 40.
          Both have directors, the Phalanx in the mount.

    • No. Effective range of Phalanx is 1.5km at most. I am not even sure the radar and tracking system are prepared to deal with those speeds.

        • As Gunbuster has said before these systems were designed to counter Mach 4.5 weapons which have been around since the Cold War.

          Not much difference IRL between Mach 4.5 -> 5.

          Hypersonic is the buzz word de jour.

          Personally I don’t believe a lot of the hype about wonder weapons.

          It is all about defensive layering.

          Aster
          Ceptor
          57mm
          30/40mm
          Phalanx

          Of course omitting EW, the most important, from the list.

  11. 3 systems covering 3 zones plus overlap, 1500 rounds per magazine @ 75 rounds per second. Then what happens ?

  12. Despite there being ongoing doubts about Phalanx effectiveness, looking at that coverage graphic, she really needs a 4th on the stern on the starboard side…

  13. The should install the aft Starboard Phalanx too. This would give an extra channel of fire. Also we should ditch the 30mm and swap them out for the 40mm going on the T31. These measures would improve the anti-surface and close in anti-air firepower.

    • I agree on phalanx but I can’t see what the 40mm can do that 30 can’t. After all if planes are that close air wing is dead and carrier is about to be done for. It’s loads of cash for no new capabilities. Now sea ram as well or missle launcher hooked to 30mm that’s worth it

      • I think the 40mm has an option for proximity fuse airburst round and the 30mm doesn’t. It would have to score a direct hit on a fast moving air target.
        Northrop is developing an airburst round for the 30mm.

  14. i thought the QE now had her full set of 4 fitted. not forgetting this a last line of defense and the PHX is a plug n play system self-contained. Type 45 will deal with whatever threat is posed in the Carrier Strike roles. but in current level of status of threat. THAT A DO…

  15. I like the concept for 57mm guns with guided munitions. I read an article a while back that the US is working on an anti-missile round that could kill over 5 miles out. So stuff the ships full of twin barrel 57mm mounts and bring back the broadside.

    • The Italian Navy are binning the Breda twin fast forty as a CIWS weapon on their carriers and assault ships. This role is instead going to the 76mm super rapid using the Leonardo Dart guided rounds, which as an effective engagement range of 5000m. Though recent trials have extended the range to 7000m.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here