According to a contract award notice, the Ministry of Defence intends to award a contract of up to five years (a three year initial term plus two option years) to Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited for “Contracting for Availability services for the Phalanx – Close In CIWS” from February 2023.

The notice states:

“The International Guns, Missiles and Rockets Project Team, part of the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) intends to award a contract of up to five years (a three year initial term plus two option years) to Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited (DRDL) for Contracting for Availability services for the Phalanx – Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS) from February 2023 In accordance with regulation 4 of The Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/697) this procurement falls to be regulated under the provisions of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 as amended (in particular by SI 2019/697 and SI 2020/1450).

Prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union is no longer appropriate. It is considered that the award of the contract without prior publication of a contract notice in the UK e-notification service is lawful under Regulation 16 (1) (a)(ii) of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011.

This is for technical reasons because only DRDL have the specific know-how, tools and means needed to meet the MOD’s In Service Support requirement concerning this complex military weapon system. In addition, DRDL are the sole licensed European operator of the Phalanx CIWS under a licensing agreement in place with Raytheon Missiles and Defence (RMD) who are the original equipment manufacturer.”

The Phalanx CIWS is a close-in weapon system for defending against anti-ship missiles. It was designed and manufactured by the General Dynamics Corporation, Pomona Division (now a part of Raytheon).

Consisting of a radar-guided 20 mm (0.79 in) Gatling gun mounted on a swivelling base, the Phalanx is used by multiple Navies around the world, namely the Royal Navy and the United States Navy on every class of surface combat ship, by the United States Coast Guard aboard its Hamilton-class and Legend-class cutters and the navies of 16 allied nations.

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

49 COMMENTS

  1. I’d love to know the breakdown of these maintenance contacts. I don’t believe this covers any upgrades so is it purely for ammunition, lubricants and a maintenance team. I know the rounds are expensive but what we are talking over £100 a piece?

  2. Seeing the exercise in Poland today with the air defence system they have, could phalanx be mounted on a vehicle for short range defence or is this range not good enough?

    • This is an ageing debate with arguments; some half decent either way. The answer right now is no one has categorically proven it either way as there are pros and cons of each approach.

      • Is it in broad terms a case of the 40mm having a longer range and packing a bigger punch per round vs Phalanx which has the higher rate of fire and is cheaper to procure/operate?

        Perhaps 3-4 40mm systems per destroyer or frigate would be better than the hodgepodge mix of 2-4 20mm Phalanx, 30mm & 40mm guns the Royal Navy is currently planning on?

        • To your last point, layering does work. To the first point, the last ditch second mm accurate performance of Phalanx can’t be reproduced by 40mm in a larger clumsier turret. 40mm must reply on the peppering effect of pre-detonating rounds in the missile’s flightpath. Phalanx just goes for tungsten direct hits. Both are effective but achieve their effect through very different mechanisms of action.

    • Depends on a lot of factors…. So just consider power supplies…
      Phalanx is stand alone. It just needs seawater cooling and 440v for the mount to work
      40mm will need a tracker be it radar or eo or both which will be seperate. So you will need power for a gun, power and services for the tracker and weapon alignment to consider.

      • Phalanx also does everything on mount. So it has its own surveillance radar, tracking radar, Threat evaluation computer, EO tracker , gun, cooling systems.

        With a 40mm system you will need separate systems. So the ships own surveillance radar, command system, trackers, cooling , computers etc.

        • GB, I was under the impression the new 40mm Bae Sweden were working on a couple of years ago had a small tracking and ranging radar on top of the turret and only external sensor needed was for detection, still needs magazine through the deck to. Obviously bow to your departmental knowledge if I’ve read that wrong though. Personally Phalanx is a great bit of kit IMO, the plug and play nature of it gives so many uses. Shame no one continued development of the GAU-8 version after goalkeeper appeared.
          Enjoy your sunshine haven’t seen it much recently.

          • I rained yesterday… RAINED.!!!. First time in 10-11 months for around 3 mins…i didn’t even have my ex Pussers foulie jacket available.
            The Problem is that the dust and sand in the air also comes down so it rains mud in effect… Still the smell of wet concrete was nice, one of those smells I associate with the UK
            👍

  4. “The International Guns, Missiles and Rockets Project Team” as a non military outsider, that sounds like a fun team to work on… basically the ‘blowing shit up’ team!

  5. If Phalanx is to stand any chance against the latest anti ship missiles, it needs the 25mm upgrade that was proposed over a decade ago. This should not be down to RN, but an international combined upgrade.

    • It actually still fairs well against modern threats. Most anti ship missiles that are supersonic in the terminal phase aren’t maneuverable.

      • Well the 20×102 Phalanx round has muzzle energy of 60,500 joules. The 25×184 of the Oerlikon upgrade proposal (circa 2000), had a muzzle energy of 147,000 to 168,000 joules. The 25mm stands more chance. Though the trials for a new Korean 30mm CIWS gatling look interesting. One has an “all in one” configuration, like Phalanx, so it does not penetrate the deck. Bang up to date sensors on both the prototypes.

        • The energy isn’t really important, connecting with the incoming missile is. A 22LR will kill an elephant stone dead if it hits its frontal lobe or any other part of the brain. A 20mm will obliterate any incoming missil of it connects before it hitting the ship.

          • Energy is useful for range. A 20×102 is likely to engage so late that most of the missile (fragments) is/are likely to still hit the ship. You need to engage further out, so 25, 30 or 35mm is a better bet than 20mm.

  7. Get rid of Phalanx and fit a modern CIWS like the Oerlikon Millennium Gun or the Thales RAPIDSeaGuardian, complemented by BAE Mk110 57mm guns that the Type 31s will be getting firing 3P, MAD-FIRES and ORKA ammo. That gives you a far better and far more flexible system to deal with a wide range of threats.

    The Phalanx guns could be moved over to RFA ships and especially the Point-class ships that currently have no defences at all.

  8. Phalanx is garbage. It lacks range and bullets are far less effective than airburst ammo. Buy a good effective CIWS like the Oerlikon Millennium Gun firing AHEAD ammo. Then complement it with the BAE Mk110 57mm gun firing 3P, MAD-FIRES and ORKA ammo.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here