Matrix Games Forums

Take a look at this!!

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... -tell.html

The article is interesting, but full of an immense amount of hyperbole. I am sure the CIWS were in safe mode for the test. Even they were on, I am sure there is a lockout to keep it from firing at its own drone.

I am also sure they don't want to release any more information on ship capabilities than they need to.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
The article is interesting, but full of an immense amount of hyperbole. I am sure the CIWS were in safe mode for the test. Even they were on, I am sure there is a lockout to keep it from firing at its own drone. I am also sure they don't want to release any more information on ship capabilities than they need to.

This was apparently a tracking exercise as opposed to a live shoot, so I am doubtful the CIWS was even loaded with ammunition, but in any event ...

From USNI News:

During a CSSQT for guided missile destroyer USS Russell (DDG-59) in 1995, an errant BQM-74 was destroyed by the ship’s CIWS during a live-fire missile shoot that was intended to test the ship’s surface-to-air Standard Missile and Aegis combat system.

Yeah, but the systems were live for an air defense test...

The original was only a tracking test I thought.

Short of it...not sure its a big deal the way the article plays it out.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Yeah, but the systems were live for an air defense test... The original was only a tracking test I thought. Short of it...not sure its a big deal the way the article plays it out.

This incident with Chancellorsville was a tracking test.

The previous incident with Russell was a live shoot.

As for whether its a big deal, I suspect that whenever sailors are injured and a billion dollar ship takes a hit:



... its a pretty big deal.

Heh... this guy (the article author) is a tool.

JD

I meant a big deal from a conspiracy standpoint.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I meant a big deal from a conspiracy standpoint.

I didn't read any 'conspiracy' theories in the article. Asking tough questions about what happened seems an entirely reasonable approach. Btw, Pritchett (Galrahn) is pretty well respected in defence news and blogging circles.

The only thing that I'm concerned about is most people want drones to be totally automatic, no human control. So all we need is these things going wrong and killing innocent people.

Terminator anyone [:D]

Well, assuming "well respected" = "knowledgeable", he should know better than to make the gigantic leap from "training accident" to "Aegis/CIWS... EPIC FAIL!!!".

Aside from the fact that training exercises are typically built around specific scenarios, which may or may not assume an all hands on deck approach to systems employment, the original reports from the USN specifically call this a "tracking" exercise. I'm guessing - with full acknowledgement that I am NOT a well respected defense blogger - that live fire training (as opposed to just "tracking") is a pretty big deal, and requires lots of notice, approvals, significant preparation, etc... not something you just decide to do when a drone operator turns to his Lieutenant (JG) and says "whoops...!"

JD

That article hinted at some kind of cover up by the navy for not explaining why CIWS didn't work. That is hinting at a cover up in my book.

Galrahn has always been very good to us and is very credible. The former Undersecretary of the Navy used to comment on his page.

The underlying issue here is you have two known targets striking one of the US's primary anti air warfare platforms. Doesn't look good at all.

Mike

I agree it looks like incompetence in operating the drone at worst. I am not sure it says anything about the defensive capabilities unless we know the standing of the crew and systems. It was only a radar tracking exercise. Depending on everything else they most likely couldn't have had any weapons at ready state.

Plus the article is poorly written. He repeats himself a couple times. It reads almost like he couldn't type it fast enough.

My two cents will go towards that this was just a RADAR tracking exercise and the ship had no intentions of firing a single round or missile at what is probably a very expensive piece of reusable equipment. My reading has uncovered that the drone was remotely controlled from Point Mugu and that the test was not designed to shoot the drone down.
LA Times
Back in my day on the USS England CG-22, their was 1 live firing of the CIWS and two of the SM-2's. Apparently the US Navy isn't too fond of live fire exercises and it makes less sense to destroy an expensive drone with an expensive missile.

The skipper tried to catch the drone with his ship to see what went wrong, and this he did! [;)]

Thats one very expensive test now [:D]

ORIGINAL: AdmSteebe
My two cents will go towards that this was just a RADAR tracking exercise and the ship had no intentions of firing a single round or missile at what is probably a very expensive piece of reusable equipment. My reading has uncovered that the drone was remotely controlled from Point Mugu and that the test was not designed to shoot the drone down.

This much appears to be common ground.

What is being alleged is that the Phalanx was activated in an attempt to bring it down, and failed - and moreover, that this tidbit has been left out of the Navy press release.

It could be it was left out because it didn't happen. I am not saying I know or should know. But he is either very bad at communicating where he is getting his info from or he is taking a huge unfounded leap. I have nothing in writing anywhere that CIWS was active or it was a live fire. It would have to have been declared a live fire well before any testing was done.

I find it strange that they used an subsonic drone for radar testing, those drones arent cheap. Looking at the Picture, it seems like it hit the ship at 90 deg angle and wings leweled and no signs of fuelfire or explosion on impact, could it have run out of fuel?, sailors injured by fire? thank god no one was killed. I personally think from what i read here that CIWS failed, no big deal, shit happens but when someone gets injured it becomes a big deal for the NAVY.

Another blogger i have "followed" for a couple of years http://navy-matters.blogspot.no/ he is wery informative but also wery Critical of NAVY leadership.

Bjørn