# Naval missile defense (as seen in "Sum of All Fears")--real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 13, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189 "2003-03-13T21:56:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/1 "2003-03-13T21:56:51Z")
I saw “The Sum of All Fears” a few weeks ago, and was wondering about one scene in particular: \*\*\*\* mild SPOILERS, if you haven’t seen the movie yet, still care, and are still foolish enough to have opened this thread \*\*\*\*\*\*\* When the Russian MiGs fire their missiles at the U.S. Naval warship, the Navy craft opens fire with a dazzling gun barrage–which is somewhat successful at destroying the missiles before they reach the ship (one makes it through). Is this real? What is this anti-missile weapon called? I just assumed that, absent some sort of ECM jamming, warships were screwed when missiles were fired at them. ---
**Author:** ![Tuco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tuco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuco)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/2 "2003-03-13T22:03:00Z")
Yeah, it’s real. It’s called the [Phalanx](http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html). ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/3 "2003-03-13T22:03:03Z")
Yup, it’s real. The system is called [AEGIS](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/aegis.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Tuco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tuco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuco)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/4 "2003-03-13T22:06:21Z")
Wow, what a double post. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/5 "2003-03-13T22:06:30Z")
Doh. Me Bizzaro Ranchoth. Me no like correct answers. 😛 :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Convict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Convict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Convict)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/6 "2003-03-13T22:57:00Z")
[slight hijack] > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > **When the Russian MiGs fire their missiles at the U.S. Naval warship…** Actually, those are Russian Tu-22 Backfire Bombers. [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm](http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-22m.htm) Pictures are at the bottom. [/slight hijack] ---
**Author:** ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/7 "2003-03-14T00:06:36Z")
Well, when missles are fired at a ship, the ship can respond first with its own anti-air missles (Standard, Sea-Sparrow) and then with the Phalanx computer controlled gun, with shoots about 50 20mm rounds every second. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/8 "2003-03-14T00:35:15Z")
In the fleet, the _Phalanx_ Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), is referred to by its acronym, or “sea-whiz.” ---
**Author:** ![hammerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hammerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammerbach)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/9 "2003-03-14T06:09:03Z")
Facinating things that I am proud to be designing (the ships, that is). When we were planning to delete CWIS from our design on DDGs, we started calling it CWAS. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/10 "2003-03-14T08:24:15Z")
CIWS gun systems are common on most modern warships now. The standard US Navy model is the [[Phalanx]](http://navysite.de/weapons/ciws_1.jpg). The Royal Navy uses Phalanx and a larger-calibre Dutch design called [[Goalkeeper]](http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/.weapons/netherlands/goalkeeper1.jpg). The Russian navy uses a slightly different set-up, known as the [[AK-630]](http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/.weapons/russia/ak630_1.jpg) (if I remember rightly). The Phalanx and Goalkeeper are entirely self-contained units, where the basic elements are an electrically-rotated multi-barrel (Gatling) gun providing an enormously high rate of fire, directed by an onboard radar that tracks incoming missiles. The Russian systems lacks the built-in radar, using the ship’s radar systems instead. None of them are foolproof systems, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/11 "2003-03-14T13:15:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robby \* > \*\*In the fleet, the _Phalanx_ Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), is referred to by its acronym, or “sea-whiz.” \*\* You were in a very polite fleet. We called it “R2-D2 with a hardon”. Newer models fire 4500 rounds per minute, or 75 per second. Lotsa noise. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/12 "2003-03-14T16:15:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > **You were in a very polite fleet. We called it “R2-D2 with a hardon”.** Oh yeah–that too. 😃 Not the best term for a briefing, though. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBill \* > \*\*Newer models fire 4500 rounds per minute, or 75 per second. Lotsa noise. \*\* Like an **extremely** loud “zipper” or buzz noise. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/13 "2003-03-14T16:25:27Z")
Yeah but does the Phalanx REALLY work? IIRC the USS Stark was successfully hit by an Iraqi missle because the Phalanx system was shut off. I think they had said the radar on the Phalanx screwed-up the other ship systems (or radar) so it was essentially useless when it was actually needed. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/14 "2003-03-14T20:12:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*Yeah but does the Phalanx REALLY work? > > IIRC the USS Stark was successfully hit by an Iraqi missle because the Phalanx system was shut off. I think they had said the radar on the Phalanx screwed-up the other ship systems (or radar) so it was essentially useless when it was actually needed. \*\* I’ve never heard that CIWS interfered with other ship systems. I have, however, heard that an armed CIWS is apt to engage “friendlies,” including your own helos or small boats. From this [link](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm): > [@](#): > > Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) incorporates a side mounted Forward Looking Infrared Radar (FLIR) which enables CIWS to engage low slow or hovering aircraft and surface craft. It’s not the type of system you want to have armed routinely. It’s my understanding that the system is only armed when a ship is under attack. I believe it can be placed in “standby,” though, and quickly armed if necessary. (As opposed to when a ship is in-port, when it is completely shut down.) The USS _Stark_ was hit, I believe, because they had no reason to believe they were under attack. Disclaimer: IANASWO (SWO = Surface Warfare Officer). I was on submarines. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/15 "2003-03-14T20:34:06Z")
The successful missile strike on the USS _Stark_ in May 1987 was somewhat of a “rules-of-engagement” issue as well. Following this attack, warships in the Persian Gulf were placed in a higher alert status. Unfortunately, this set the stage for the USS _Vincennes_, thinking it was under attack, to tragically shoot down an Iranian Airbus and kill 290 people in July 1988. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/16 "2003-03-14T21:13:24Z")
Ranchoth is wrong, the system shown in the movie wasn’t AEGIS. AEGIS is installed on certain classes of cruisers and destroyers(see his cite for details), and the ship in the movie was a carrier. Of course, in real life, the carrier would have some AEGIS ships as escorts(the lack of escorts in the movie really made me laugh). ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/17 "2003-03-14T21:23:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Ranchoth is wrong, the system shown in the movie wasn’t AEGIS. His followup post 3 minutes later makes it clear that he’s aware of his error. > [@](#): > > Doh. Me Bizzaro Ranchoth. Me no like correct answers. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/18 "2003-03-14T22:22:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > \*\*Is this real? What is this anti-missile weapon called? I just assumed that, absent some sort of ECM jamming, warships were screwed when missiles were fired at them. \*\* [http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/7.28.html](http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/7.28.html) This is typical of Pentagon testing, and seems to be particularly prevalent in the Aegis system. An interesting parallel concerns the testing for the Phalanx close-in shipboard missile defense system, which of course is included as part of the Aegis umbrella. The Navy’s final results of the testing conducted for Phalanx reported that the system had achieved greater than 80% “success.” But what was the definition of “success?” Pentagon watchdog groups did a little digging with the Freedom of Information Act, and determined that “success” had been interpreted as “destruction of the incoming missile.” Well, that seemed okay, so most investigations were dropped. But some whistle-blowers in the Pentagon produced some disconcerting information. While it was true that simulated incoming missiles had indeed been “hit” and “destroyed,” it had been determined that the debris and rocket fuel of the destroyed missile would continue onward and hit the ship, causing tremendous impact and an inevitable fire. It was estimated that this would be enough to destroy or knock out nearly any vessel. But since the simulated missiles had been “destroyed,” the Navy proudly announced that Phalanx had passed the test. Empirical evidence from the Falklands war makes the Phalanx testing look even less realistic. Only one of the Exocets hitting Royal Navy ships exploded, yet the dud Exocets still did hellish damage, including sinking two ships. (I don’t know if this information is accurate.) ---
**Author:** ![DreadCthulhu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DreadCthulhu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DreadCthulhu)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/19 "2003-03-15T00:18:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rysto \* > \*\*Ranchoth is wrong, the system shown in the movie wasn’t AEGIS. AEGIS is installed on certain classes of cruisers and destroyers(see his cite for details), and the ship in the movie was a carrier. Of course, in real life, the carrier would have some AEGIS ships as escorts(the lack of escorts in the movie really made me laugh). \*\* Just a minor point, carriers do carry several Phalanx guns systems, as well as smaller anti-airmissles(Sea-Sparrows, to be exact.) ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189/20 "2003-03-15T00:41:29Z")
Makes me wonder why they’re getting rid of the phalanx. The official reason is that the evolved sea sparrow will provide better cover - but why not provide multi-tiered, last-chance point defense if it’s essentially free? (Self contained radar, takes up a small space on the ship). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/naval-missile-defense-as-seen-in-sum-of-all-fears-real/161189.md?page=2)