This is the thing Phalanx being a complex electromechanical piece of kit has more bits to go wrong. Yes the Humble Oerlikon or Bofors has a simpler system but they have manual controls that can work (in the older models) without power and have a crew on them to sort out any stoppages. The principle of KISS should be applied to the last layer of the airdefence bubble. Yes have the missiles and phalanx but a few more crew served manual weapons have their place.
Can the Naval Minigun mount elevate enough to provide AAAD? and maybe a few .5's on ships would be useful additional airdefence.

Ship defence
 

Now you're talking common sense - that will never go down well !

People are sure to jump up & say " by the time an attacking aircraft has got within that range, he's lobbed something nasty & pointy at you ".

Probably true, but if I were skipper on a warship I'd be quite keen on having a row of crew with guns & Manpads, & relying on 1 or 2 anti-missile sytems just won't cut it with anyone but shore based accountants...

How about a war role for bean counters as fenders / anti splinter mats ?!

When closed up at action, any war canoe will have (NBCD etc allowing) upperdeck gun crews closed up on 20mm and GPMG. Phalanx/Goalkeeper will be set to AAW Auto if required. To be fair...Phalanx VS Sunburn is still going to be bad day out...a few tons of burning, bus sized weapon coming your way at Mach several will part your hair. Phalanx just divides it neatly into chunks first.

True but Phalanx isn't Be all and end all as the israelis found out of Lebanon when a UAV that flew out side the parameters of Phalanx nearly took out one of their ships.
I am aware of the Trade off's between top weight and weapons but surley allowances should now be built into ships to allow them a dramatic increase in the number of Light anti aircraft guns

As one who's job is ship design, the problem is not topweight - it's actually upperdeck space these days. If you want to mount cannon-calibre weapons, you have to be able to site them with R/U locker space close at hand, good arcs (and elevs) of fire and comms to the warfare team. All these areas have to be clear of RAS routes and boat handling areas. Oh and being away from RADHAZ zones also tends to be winner in terms of wanting kids with the right number of heads......

Take a look at the more recent designs and you'll see there is less and less space available with the trend towards "stealthy" designs. Wrong move in my opinion, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to change.

Notaboffin - are you really telling me that adding significant topweight to legacy platforms such as T42 B3 is not a factor? I would contend that changes in GZ AND physical space would both be significant factors. T45 of course doesn't have the upperdeck free area her predecessors do, but then she was designed with all the spare space on the INSIDE.

PS It's been SHIPHAZ for a few years now...RADHAZ having not been quite all inclusive enough of risk factors.

What about the value of good old fashioned low calibre rapid fire weapons for situations such as pirate boats armed with RPGs off Somalia, or other asymmetric situations which most poeple in the know will already be fully aware of.

Big expensive missiles and a single high calibre gun are all very well and good in high tech WWIII scenarios, but that is almost the least likely situation these days.......

BL

On the legacy ships you are of course correct.There is neither space nor margin to mount anything on the 42s. I was referring to Nurse's built-in comment with regard to new ships and the point remains valid for T45. Having just completed a feasibility assessment for a potental fit to T45, it's bl00dy difficult to find anywhere sensible for additions requiring arcs. Space on the inside is well and good for some applications, but if you want to mount "stuff" there ain't no alternative to weatherdeck and lots of it.


You may talk SHIPHAZ, we still use old money, particularly where RFE are the main issue.

Anyone know if/when this programme will be repeated?

Have to say Not a Boffin I do agree with you about the design of warships IMHO some of the Falklands lessons appear to have been forgoten. and a smaller calibre 20-30mm is multi purpose and better for stopping smaller vessels on the high seas a 4.5 being pointed at a foreign vessel could be more diplomatically embarassing than a 20mm oerlikon or 40mm Bofors.
The stealth design may lower the detectability but we must always plan for ships to be attacked and have the layers to defend themselves. The best the royal navy has at present IMHO is the T22/III. The 23's were a step backwards in not having a phalanx or goalkeeper system.