Talk:Phalanx CIWS

Turkish Navy

I can't provide online source for this, I know it first hand that Turkish Navy has Phalanx systems. I have seen it on several Turkish frigates myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.134.112 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Range

The Saar 5s carry a 20mm Phalanx auto cannon for knocking down anti-ship missiles, and, in this case, the Phalanx may have only been partially successful. A second C-802, fired at the same time, locked onto a near by Egyptian freighter, and sank it. Both ships were about 60 kilometers off the coast. The C-820 has a max range of 120 kilometers, and moves along at about 250 meters a second. Phalanx is supposed to be turned on whenever the ship is likely to have an anti-ship missile fired at it. The radar can spot incoming missiles out to about 5,000 meters, and the 20mm cannon is effective out to about 2,000 meters. With incoming missiles moving a 250 meters a second, you can see why Phalanx is set to automatic. There's not much time for human intervention. The Israelis are not releasing any information about how their defenses (including the electronic ones) handled the incoming C-802s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.214.169.251 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Phalanx CIWS would not (afaik) normally engage the second C-802 fired at the same time, as it was not a *direct* threat to the ship armed with Phalanx. There is a good question however as to range. This (relatively recent) article by the british army news site Forces.net suggests an effective range of 9km.

This is substantially in excess of the effective ranges cited in the material which is the source of the cited ranges for the article.

Do we have any really god details on range.

Additional point - the pages on other systems such as Goalkeeper CIWS include a useful comparison section "Comparison with current CIWS"

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Rate of fire

Ok, so they fire 2000 rounds per 2000, but they only hold 1500 rounds in their clip, that means they can only fire for less than half a second before having to "reload"? Or do they have some kind of ammo hold that automatically feeds into the gun? --Rain 22:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that would be 20 seconds worth of fire. If you look at the Goalkeeper CIWS page, there is more helpful information. It probably takes only a few seconds of fire to destroy the target. Noisy | Talk 23:37, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. As a former CIWS tech it normally takes approx 200-300 rounds to destroy an imbound projectile. In the wiki entry I edited the fire rate and Radar Information. Hydraulic CIWS systems can only fire 3000 rounds a minute. The newer Pneumatic 1A and 1B systems can only fire 4500 rounds a min. The fire rate for the newer systems is not able to be changed.

There is not a Search and Track Radar System. There is only one Radar System which has a Search and Track Antenna. The system utilizes only one of the antennas at a time due to there only being one transmitter in the system. And please don't refernce the Track antenna as "Orange Peel" that is inaccurate. It is an Inverted Truncated Parrabaloid antenna. The Search is a 4 Beam phased array antenna for the newer systems.

Tick mark on photo

The ciws on the Missouri has a broken missle tick on it. Did it shoot down one of the two Iraqi silkworms fired in it's vacinity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.65.168 (talk • contribs) November 4, 2005.

Perhaps it got partial credit for the kill?

This is a a very amazing and useful weapon, but it _does_ have the dubious distinction of being one of the few systems that has killed more users than it has saved, as a number of maintenance personell have been crushed while working on an unsecured weapon. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Hazel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.75.23 (talk • contribs) June 9, 2006.

Killed more users? I'd like to see the source for that statement. --Dual Freq 22:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The tick mark is probably the result of a successful test firing against a towed target. Royhandy 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Tick marks are sometimes made by the crew after a Succesfully Towed missile engament. And no one has ever been crushed by the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly fire incident

Though I'm not specifically familiar with this incident, it seems unlikely that Phalanx would fire at a deployed Chaff cloud. Chaff is launched from what is basically a rocket launcher. This projectile, containing chaff, must be propelled away from the ship where it explodes hopefully luring the missile away. It seems that from this source the CIWS fired at the rocket after it launched and before the chaff deployed. A 5 inch rocket heading toward the Jarrett at that range would seem to be worth shooting at. Yes, it's friendly fire, but it seems like Phalanx was only doing what it was supposed to do. Without seeing an official report, perhaps the weapon fired at the rocket until it either no longer met engagement criteria (wasn't a threat to the Jarrett), or until the rocket deployed its chaff with some of the Phalanx rounds following a ballistic trajectory and hitting the Missouri. The way the article and its source are worded, it implies that CIWS malfunctioned, and fired at the [deployed] Chaff. I'd say it did what it was supposed to, but it resulted in an unintended consequence. --Dual Freq 22:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some misunderstandings that happened during this incident. It was an older system with less advanced computing and radar as the newer system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Last line of defense"

This phrase is used an awful lot in this article. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit to be less repetitive? Viper007Bond 10:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

SeaRAM

Should there be a mention of SeaRAM in this article? The system is made using a Phalanx frame, radar and other components, and I believe it is Navy policy that it will replace the gun-based CIWS in most applications. --Warphammer 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuke the fiction section?

The CIWS has no major fictional appearances. The section is an IMDB listing of its nominal appearances in films. I say let's delete the whole thing as non-notable. --Mmx1 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of fiction sections in general. The one on this page is very large and basically useless. I've dealt with these sections before, they are hard to get rid of because everyone wants to add their favorite Anime feature, model airplane, GI Joe toy or some such thing to the list. The R2D2 thing in the lead paragraph bothers me a bit too. I bet the only ones who call it R2D2 are mess cooks or non-navy folks who have no idea what it really is. I never heard it called R2D2, but that's only my informed opinion. I'd say if it has a real nick name it would be CWIS, pronounced sea-whiz. Dual Freq 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I was tangentially involved in the turnup at Balad and we *always* called it "C-RAM" ("seeram"). I was civvie so when I say "we" I mean myself and every uniform associated with the project. I'd call it "R2D2 with a chubby" to people who hadn't heard that term, but it was just for a few laughs and then right back to "C-RAM".Geeyore (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's frequently referred to not as "R2D2" but "R2D2 with a hard-on" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.222.108 (talk • contribs) .

Yep, operations and supply department might call it that, but not Combat systems and not the Firecontrolman who maintain the system. Dual Freq 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuked the fiction; not sure about R2D2. No experience in the Navy, but I have heard it often on the civilian side. May just be an apocryphal story. --Mmx1 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember it being frequently called that, while in I was in the Navy, but I never served on a ship with the system. I agree that R2D2 should not appear in the first paragraph. It may hve been called that to point it out easily from a distance, the white and the shape would stick out a lot (espeically on the battleships), and a quick reference rather than describing the shape. Plus that was a good quick reference when they started appearing on the ships in the early 1980's. --Wfoj2 23:00 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the R2D2 name may have been more common early on. My dad was in the USN during the time of their introduction and that usage was fairly common when they were first appearing, with "Sea-Whiz" being more common by the 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.181.12.117 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You lot are arrogant as hell, as if you are both omniscient and omnipotent. You clearly are operating on second and third hand information. Just because something is not "notable" to you, does not mean it is not notable to others. Consider the fact that there might be over viewpoints in the universe which should be considered. I know it is difficult for a pack of wikinazis, but just try it for once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.19.245 (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Dear 124.171.19.245, if this is your best attempt at discussion, I give up. Despite my attempt to engage you in a meaningful dialogue, you have not shown the least bit of civility towards everybody. As everybody can see here, you're not doing yourself a favour by calling us names (Wikinazis???). IF you do not wish to discuss then so be it, why even come here to make such a big ruckus. As a matter of fact, your edit stays off if the regular editors do not agree in our consensus and what you have remarked has made even more impossible for us to accept your argument. Oh and by the way, you have just been blocked for 31hours due to your disruptive editing behaviour here. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

CIWS 1

Isn't this a very maintenance intensive system? (and other similiar systems) Any verifiable source on this. --Wfoj2 23:00 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes very, very maintenance intensive. Approx 200-300 maintenance checks performed in a quarter, ranging from daily operational checks to Gun and Ammo handling system tear down and rebuilds performed quartley and semiannualy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Currently fitted to Royal Navy ships according to Janes: eight Type 42s, the auxiliary oiler-replenishment vessels RFA Fort Victoria and RFA Fort George, the landing platform helicopter HMS Ocean and the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. 81.86.144.210 07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The RN usually says, more specifically than this article, that the Sea Dart missile actually hit the iraqi silkworm and is the only combat engagement where this occured.

CIWS 2

Although an accurate and well researched entry, i would like to point out two errors within the entry.Firstly, CIWS does not aim to destroy an incoming target by exploding the warhead. CIWS cant distinguish different parts of a target, it only sees targets as a blob.As a former CIWS technician, and someone who has visited Loiuseville (home of CIWS)and spoken to the technicians, I can say with certainty that CIWS aims to destroy a targets aerodynamics first. An incoming target doing many times the speed of sound has only to be hit once or twice to send that target into the sea, or wildly off course. If a round hits the warhead and the missile explodes, all the better, but this is not the intent. Secondly, CIWS no longer uses depleted uranium projectiles (and hasnt for 10 years). Todays antiship missiles are generally not armoured, and any aircraft that are armoured will never be within CIWS range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matilda100 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point about how CIWS aims to destroy a target. however the Navy still does use some Depleted Uranium primarily for training however it is still loaded aboard ships until its "depleted" from stock.

I can say from first had experience from many TOW exercises that CIWS turns missiles into swiss cheese and in all actuallity a knocked off guidance fin is the goal for knocking the missile out of the sky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.148.15 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dalek?

The R2D2 name is an American nickname, but the British navy has their own nickname, Daleks, after the robots from Doctor Who. Since it is an english name, it hasn't really caught on in the US, But I think is should have a brief mention alonside the R2D2 info. --Simpsons fan 66 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for this, as there was for the American name? Additionally, the parenthasied reference should be formatted similarly, rather than simply copying the first line of the linked article. Nottheking (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Source here. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that site qualifies as a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:690D:3100:D1D9:71F4:E375:313B (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest some video footage, this one is quite good as a demonstration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILcVt9p7cug Weirdo10o4 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Range specification

Range Specification should be 1-2 nm

Links and Companionship

Amplification of the "link" between the CIWS FLIR optical sensors and RAM RIM-116 might be useful - how is this link supported; does the statement only apply with an integrated SeaRAM weapon system? The use of term "companion" systems for Sea-RAM and CIWS may imply to casual readers that these heavy-weight systems, Sea-RAM and CIWS, are somewhere used simultaneously (as in side-by-side companions) on the same ship, and not used as one or the other but never both. Suggest a separate article for Sea-RAM (separate from CIWS and separate from RAM (regular RAM GMLS Mk 49)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Automated fire?

The article doesn't explain what these systems do. The article says there is a gun, electronics/computer, and a radar, but it doesn't say how they are used. I believe that the computer detects targets using the radar and fire the gun at them autonomously. Is this correct?

One could imagine that the computer reports the existence of a target and alerts on operator who approves the use of the gun. One could even imagine that the computer reports the existence of a target and aids in the aiming, but that a human actual decides whether to fire or not (to "pull the trigger" as it were). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.114.7 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect hometown

The caption of a US Navy photo of a reloading operation contains an incorrect hometown(Pocatello Indiana instead of Pocatello Idaho) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.82.17 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

CIWS 3

FYI only (not RS);

"Mk 15 Phalanx was designed so that it could be used as a stand-alone system. It can for example be bolted to the deck of any ship, even those that lack any kind of combat systems. Just plug it in and it is ready to go. So the applications include not just combat vessels but auxiliaries such as tankers, amphibious ships, transports and cargo vessels. There is no other equivelent gun system in the west. The American/Dutch/French Goalkeeper like Phalanx has its own onboard sensor package for autonomous operation but it requires deck penetration and thus can not be easily applied to ships that were not designed for it. Goalkeeper has a more powerful weapon with greater range and lethality and can track more targets than Phalanx though. The Chinese have a system, the Type 730 which is practically a carbon-copy of Goalkeeper.

The Italian Dardo and Swiss Seaguard not only require deck penetration for the weapon mounts but also depend heavily on the ships own combat command system for target data and fire control. The ships Target Indication Radar for example is the systems primary search element but it can also take data from the ships ESM system or an IRST while target tracking and fire control is by an off-mount electro-optical director. These systems are more massive than a stand-alone solution and naturally require much greater ship integration but have the advantage of much more powerful sensors locating higher up on the ship and the ability to handle many more targets at much greater ranges.

As an anti-missile system Phalanx was intended to be temporary - a sotp-gap solution until RAM was fielded, but RAM was more than a decade late so Phalanx became a fixture on many ship classes and for far longer than ever intended. In the 1980's the British Royal Navy conducted a study on the effectiveness of various anti-ship missile defenses and determined that against an Exocet-type target (relatively slow and unsophisticated) Phalanx would likely not achieve a kill until the target approached within 300 meters of the ship. For Goalkeeper the kill range was 800 meters. This is important because at ranges of less than 1 km even if the target is destroyed, fragments from it will still be travelling fast enough to pepper the ship (like a huge shotgun) and could potentially put the ship out of action like in the USS Worden incident off Vietnam. The RN stopped buying Phalanx and Goalkeeper after that. But to be fair, neither of these systems were intended to be a ships primary defense against missiles but rather its last-ditch defense, when everything else had failed.

Today Phalanx in the USN is no longer employed primarily to engage missile targets but is retained for use against small surface craft. To this end surviving installations are fitted with Infra-red camera's for identification and accurate tracking of small fast targets on the surface."

Feel free to comment. - thewolfchild 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Whilst Dardo Type A required deck penitration, according to the wiki page, Dardo Type B doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARDO It should be noted that the RN has put some Phalanx units on the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, so saying that in the 1980's they "stopped buying it" (or goalkeeper for that matter) is clearly not the case. The Type 45 destroyer has Phalanx as does the plans for Type 26 frigate (it's true that Type 23 frigate for example does not have a CIWS)

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phalanx CIWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091007164338/http://www.raytheon.com:80/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_ciws_datash.pdf to http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_ciws_datash.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference for Phalanx

links to a ship.Phd8511 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Unit cost

Hi, the unit cost for these systems (35 million $) seemed quite eccessive, so I looked it up and it does appear to be so. Depending on the source you check it seems to be 3.8 mil (globalsecurity.org), 5.6 mil (navysite.de, bombshock.com) or 7.8 mil (deagel.com) and an upgrade cost of 4.5 + 1 mil (defensetech.org). Now you'll notice that most of these aren't particularly reliable sites, so I'll just put in the globalsecurity one till something better pops up. Cheers, --Amendola90 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Official Designations

I think that this Phalanx CIWS page on Wikipedia should have a reference on its official designation, like the "Mk 15" in the US Armed Forces ... -- RoyKabanlit (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phalanx CIWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713122126/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847389509&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847389509&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820113825/http://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil:80/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/Guns/ciws.htm to https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/Guns/ciws.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

*Target Mach 2 .

• Target Mach 2 .

Is that understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.198.97 (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phalanx CIWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015120203/http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp961024/10240334.htm to http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp961024/10240334.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128200002/http://www.timripley.co.uk/articles/jdw_uk_deploys_c_ram.pdf to http://www.timripley.co.uk/articles/jdw_uk_deploys_c_ram.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phalanx CIWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714144716/http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?CatID=National&ArticleID=news%2Fcapfeed%2Fnational%2Fn111837A.xml to http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?CatID=National&ArticleID=news%2Fcapfeed%2Fnational%2Fn111837A.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably incorrect - needs a source.

'No missile had in fact been fired, but the chaff firing was in response to an erroneous "missile firing alert" that was actually an oil well head going up. The Iraqis had been setting the oil wells alight in Kuwait for some days. Exeter had relieved HMS Gloucester in the Northern Persian Gulf a few days before and in the weeks before that, Gloucester had shot down a Silkworm missile aimed at Missouri'.

This differs from most other accounts and therefore needs a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.113 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In fact the source cited just before this says, ' A Seadart missile fired from the HMS Gloucester destroyed an incoming Silkworm anti-ship missile fired from one of Iraq's shore-based missile launchers'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.212.113 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a version of the Phalanx that combines the gun & RAM missiles?

Unless I'm mistaken, I think SeaRAM uses the Phalanx radar to fire RAM missiles, but is there a version of Phalanx that combines the Gatling gun with RAM missiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.53.61 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Once a Phalanx is out of ammo, how long does it take to reload?

Once a Phalanx is out of ammo, how long does it take to reload? And how many Phalanx rounds does a warship carry and how many times can a Phalanx be reloaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.53.61 (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Centurion C-RAM into Phalanx CIWS. I think the content in Centurion C-RAM can easily be explained in the context of Phalanx CIWS, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Phalanx CIWS. Gjs238 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As the creator of the C-RAM article I do Oppose the merge, they are very similar yes, but are different systems. In fact, I think taking the C-RAM section out of the CIWS article, and merging it into C-RAM. The current article is a little clunky as is, measuring at over 2.5k words (25k characters), having a split is well justified.

As this is a different topic from the main article, having a second article really does not hurt, and per WP:NOMERGE "Merging should be avoided if: ... [they] could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles, or The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short." I think that C-RAM meets both of these requirements, and does not fall under any of the reasons for a merge. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Currently the Centurion C-RAM article is barely more than stub/start. if this article is wordy, it's because editors have let it be so. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello,
Again, it warrants a mention here, but I would honestly support merging the C-RAM section in this article to the C-RAM article. They are different topics, covered differently by different sources, and the article is unambiguously of a broader scope than the section. This article would be harmed by the increase of irrelevant content into it, it would clutter up the article, simple as that. Geardona (talk to me?) 10:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge, while derived from the Phalanx the Centurion is distinct enough and has enough significant in-depth coverage for a stand-alone article. I also think that a joint article which tried to cover both in depth would quickly become unwieldy, especially as their combat histories are very distinct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not seeing the need for a separate article at this time given that the Centurion C-RAM article is not currently well developed. If it were expanded to a larger size I would support a stand alone article. At this point its an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  May I ask what part of WP:CONTENTFORK it fails, in your view? Geardona (talk to me?) 16:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona Sure. WP:CFORK specifically mentions size as an indication of a need to create a spin off article. At this point in time the Phalanx CIWS#Centurion C-RAM section is of an appropriate size and of WP:DUEWEIGHT for the topic. The Phalanx CIWS article as a whole is not unwieldy no matter what was erroneously stated above. The prose count for this article clocks in at 2,942 words or 18,526 characters. We typically don't call articles unwieldy until they hit the 8,000 to 15,000 word mark per policy at WP:SIZERULE. The article is well below the word count for splitting which says that articles below 6,000 words don't even need to be trimmed. On balance, two paragraphs on the Centurion C-RAM seems appropriate in the Phalanx CIWS, and until the Centurion C-RAM article (or the subsection in the Phalanz CIWS article) is expanded significantly, there really is no reason to house essentially identical content in two locations. In other words, content development should drive the decision to split. Per WP:HASTE we don't need to rush to split these. When it's clear the content has developed to the point where we need two articles then we should have two articles. We have not yet reached that place. I would say we would need at least double the prose size at Centurion C-RAM to justify a stand alone article. The body of the article is below 1500 characters, making it a stub. I can't support keeping a stub article in this context.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Where do you see under 1500 words, dyk check word counter puts it at 1900 prose size. (Genuine question: is it a script difference or something else) Also I can handle a 2x expansion maybe this week or next. As for the dead links they are dead as a doornail, all of the archives lead to an old 404 page. Geardona (talk to me?) 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Actually on a slightly different note, I don't think the C-RAM section on this page is all to good, it cited to dead links and youtube videos. Can this be taken into account when considering? Geardona (talk to me?) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, although the solution would be to fix dead url links through the waybackmachine and remove youtube videos (unless they are by recognized media, in which case they should be reformatted appropriately to attribute reliable news sources). Likewise, the better sourced material should be merged to improve the subsection at Phalanx CIWS#Centurion C-RAM. 4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4
Per WP:NOTMERGE

Merging should be avoided if ... The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles, or
The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.

This leads me to believe that
A) Both articles could be expanded, and they both meet the GNG.
B) Length is not a valid reason to merge two articles on discrete subjects.
C) Despite WP:HASTE stating that "There is no need for haste in splitting an article when it starts getting large. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage." This is not about a split of the subject of the CWIS, it is a related but different subject, therefore it does not apply.
D)I don't know where you got the two thousand characters for this article, it currently sits at (according to DYK check word counter) 16357 characters (2574 words) "readable prose size".
E) Despite you stating "The body of the article is below 1500 characters, making it a stub" at the time of your comment, it was not, it was around 2000.
Thank you, Geardona (talk to me?) 14:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona I specifically stated body, meaning I didn't count the prose in the lead which is a summary of the body. Please read WP:STUBDEF which states that prose text is not our only indication that a topic is a stub. As for the other, you are completely ignoring the fact that this topic was already covered in Phalanx CIWS prior to the article you created. The arguments being made that WP:SPLIT, WP:CFORK and WP:HASTE policy aren't applicable are entirely spurious. Prior existing material matters in how we decide to cover this material both for editorial reasons and attribution purposes.

Given that this topic was already covered in more detail elsewhere, the stub rating stands. As for the other, I think the argument being made by the nominator is that this isn't a clearly distinct topic from the Phalanx CIWS. I could go either way on this. They are closely connected. The proof to me is in the prose size. At this point this text would not look clunky or seem unreasonable as subsection in the in the Phalanx CIWS article. The avoidance of clunky text is a key part of WP:NOTMERGE. I suggest doing the work of expanding the article by adding more content. That would prove definitively that there is a need for a separate article. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Now that the article is clearly more developed, merging is no longer the best option. I struck my earlier vote above.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.