Are gun and missile CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) systems obsolete?

[seadude]

Exactly as the thread title says. How much further will they continue to be developed and used?
Frankly, with the way newer, faster, and more capable ship killing missiles are being developed, I'd bet gun based CIWS systems won't last another 5-10 years, if even that.
For example, the American Phalanx CIWS system was designed in 1969. It didn't enter service till 1980. It's almost 45 years old. I doubt it'll last another 5 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
The RAM missile launching system isn't as old as the Phalanx, but it's getting there. It's 32 years old having entered service in 1992.
But the development of the system started in the late 70's to early 80's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile
I know laser defense systems are being developed and put aboard ships in limited numbers. You really won't see them in mass quantities for probably another 10 or more years.

[rickshaw]

There is still quite a few years before every navy fields new CIWS to counter new missiles.  I would suggest it is about 10 years before we see that.  Once it happens, I would expect Phalanx to be upgraded with a larger calibre gun and the RAM missile to be replaced with a new missile, most probably a Sidewinder with the RAM's seeker.  Those Navies that have adopted Goalkeeper have the advantage over the USN.

[jcf]

Don't hold your breath waiting for laser systems, they'd have more difficulty intercepting
a missile than a gun or a current missile system. The problem is that in order to hit the
target it has to be acquired first and a laser has to hit dead-on to be effective. They look
all cool and sh!t in movies, in space at least, but using one in an atmosphere is a whole
different can of worms. 

[Dizzyfugu]

I'd also expect that the required energy for continuous use of a laser is a problem. There are laser weapons already in use, e.g. on tanks, but these are intended to ruin enemy sensors and are not capable of destroying anything that comes in - that's still left to kinetic systems, and I think that such measures will still have a long future because they are simple, quite cheap and can passively "lie in wait" until necessary. A laser needs active guidance and good targeting, what also makes it quite complicated - with a gatling gun you just hold into the rough direction of the target, some rounds will most probably hit it.

[Weaver]

On the other hand, the rise of very cheap drones and cheap, slow "missiles" such as are currently being used in Ukraine might give a new lease of life to gun-based CIWS on ships just as it is doing on land. The range of targets they can engage might change, but the rational for having them will still be valid.

As for sophisticated, fast, high-end missiles, I've said for years that gun-based anti-missile systems need to be longer-ranged to start engaging them further out. I think the Italians have the right idea with the use of the 76mm OTO-Melara combined with sophisiticated fire control and course-corrected shells. That's not to say that this system is more effective than a missile, but then a) ships can carry a lot more shells than they can missiles, and b) not getting swamped is important in this scenario, so if you can co-opt a multi-purpose gun to provide an extra channel of anti-missile fire then that's an advantage. 

[Old Wombat]

Microwave lasers are probably the current preferred CIWS energy systems but, once they become common, are quite easily countered - much like most laser-based systems.

Any country that goes to war relying on HELS for their CIWS is going to wish they hadn't.

Gun systems are going to be around for a long time to come, supported by missiles (or vice-versa).

The greatest bonus of a kinetic kill is that, almost always, there is little chance of the incoming bogey hitting the target.

This is not necessarily the case with HEL kills, where the electronic kill may leave the incoming bogey able to continue on to strike the target, it may not explode (if that is its purpose) but there may be enough kinetic energy to damage, disable or kill the target.

If you're going to try HELS to get your electronic kills, get them to work at long range (not something they're good at), such that any evasive manoeuvre programs the bogey may have are disabled, in order to allow kinetic kill weapons (especially guns) to kill the bogey dead!

[Weaver]

The greatest bonus of a kinetic kill is that, almost always, there is little chance of the incoming bogey hitting the target.

That's actually not the case with short-ranged CIWS vs supersonic missiles. Anti-ship missiles tend to have armour-piercing delay-fused warheads with a pretty tough nose cone that 20mm shells and airburst fragments can't get through. Furthermore, supersonic missiles tend to have more airframe components made of tougher materials like stainless steel and titanium rather than aluminium. If you shoot the wings and airframe off such a missile at a couple of hundred yards, or even "blow it to bits", the bits, possibly including an intact warhead, still have enough kinetic energy to hit the ship, and at supersonic speed they're likely to do considerable damage even if the warhead isn't intact. This is one of the main arguments against Vulcan Phalanx and is why you havn't seen a CIWS system of under 30mm calibre developed in the last 30+ years.

[Old Wombat]

Phalanx, to my mind, is an anti-drone system, now, rather than a true CIWS (more of a 2CIWS ).

30mm, like Goalkeeper, is probably the minimum, at the moment (& headed for obsolescence, too),

But the weapon/counter-weapon cycle is effecting the "hunter" missile, too, which is one of the main drivers for hypersonic weapons (especially for the anti-shipping role). The price of extra armour is increased size & weight, which has to be minimised, &, so, warheads were having to shrink. By going hypersonic the entire missile becomes the weapon, the energy released in penetrating a ship is enough to cause even plain old air to explode.

[kitbasher]

No they're not.  You can't jam bullets.

It's just the nature of the systems that could change.  Ideal for downing low, slow drones.

A range of answers are needed to counter a range of threats, so there's equally a place for missiles too.

[Weaver]

I think that what you will see (maybe are already seeing) is increased integration erode the identity of the "CIWS" as a distinct weapon system. A ship will just have sensors, missiles, guns and computers, and the latter can use ANY sensor to point ANY weapon at ANY target. So if you look at the new Type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy, neither their 57mm nor their 40mm guns are "CIWS" as such since they don't have any on-mount or dedicated sensors, but I'll bet you the integrated radar and EO systems can seamlessly point them at any target they can detect.

[Nick]

The Royal Navy and US Navy defended against an attack in the Red Sea last night. They defeated 21 drones and missiles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67932725

The worrying part is this:
"As former Royal Navy commanders have pointed out, there can be as little as 30 seconds' warning between the detection of an incoming supersonic missile and its impact."

That's 30 seconds to spot, identify and respond to a radar contact that may be a missile or a seagull. And missiles are getting faster each decade.

[Old Wombat]

No they're not.  You can't jam bullets.

It's just the nature of the systems that could change.  Ideal for downing low, slow drones.

A range of answers are needed to counter a range of threats, so there's equally a place for missiles too.

I think you mis-understood what I wrote; I wasn't saying guns were "headed for obsolescence", I was saying 30mm guns were headed for obsolescence.

[zenrat]

The Royal Navy and US Navy defended against an attack in the Red Sea last night. They defeated 21 drones and missiles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67932725

The worrying part is this:
"As former Royal Navy commanders have pointed out, there can be as little as 30 seconds' warning between the detection of an incoming supersonic missile and its impact."

That's 30 seconds to spot, identify and respond to a radar contact that may be a missile or a seagull. And missiles are getting faster each decade.

If the seagulls are supersonic, then you have bigger problems than incoming missiles.

[Devilfish]

CIWS is literally a last line of defence in a greater network.  They are designed to put up a wall of lead, with as many rounds as possible, hence why they use multi-barrel guns, for the rate of fire.  They are quick and effective, and, comparatively cheap.  I can't see them being replaced, except by something of the same ilk....

[Weaver]

Don't hold your breath waiting for laser systems, they'd have more difficulty intercepting
a missile than a gun or a current missile system. The problem is that in order to hit the
target it has to be acquired first and a laser has to hit dead-on to be effective. They look
all cool and sh!t in movies, in space at least, but using one in an atmosphere is a whole
different can of worms.

Just saw a video giving a realistic explanation of this in response to press hyperboli around the UK's new Dragonfire naval laser system. Some interesting points:

1. In one test it took 10+ seconds for a medium-power laser to do enough damage to a drone to bring it down. Pouring a lot of heat into something may indeed do it damage, but it's not the quickest way of doing so, especially if the target can detect the attack and maneuver to reduce the amount of time the laser is on target.

2. Lasers in atmospheres suffer from both scattering and blooming, the latter being the effect whereby the laser heats up the air it's passing through, changing it's density and hence it's refractive index, and thereby creating a 'lens' that bends the beam. The net effect of this is that most of the current crop of lasers aren't effective at more than a couple of miles. The beam will go further, but it can't be concentrated enough and pointed accurately enough to deliver enough energy density in a short enough time to be militarily effective.

3. Lasers have their uses, especially in providing an 'infinite ammunition' solution to swarms of cheap drones, and in non-lethal (stop trying to pirate us if you value your eyesight) applications, but missiles and guns wil be around for a long time yet.