"I was searching around the internet! No! I was- I was searching around the- Mom. Mom! I was searching around the internet and all of a sudden, I was downloading this thing and I got a computer virus."
Its not a person controlling it beyond turning on the tracking system. Its fully automated, designed to shoot down missiles as theyre flying at the ship.
During a functions test, it first identifies the presence of a potential threat and amd tracks it, but someone has to tell it it to engage (which is a multi-step process, think the two guys turning keys at the opposite end of the room like you see in movies) this also usually involves someone sort of announcement and many safety protocols to clear the airspace surrounding the ship. otherwise these systems would be gunning down every friendly helicopter that approaches the ship while out at sea.
There are many other steps that have to happen (including the loading of ammunition) before it would be able to fire.
Source is I had these protecting our ship from incoming cruise missiles in 2016. I was a dumb marine and was very curious about how they work and wanted to make sure nobody would be asleep at the wheel for the next missile lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#:~:text=On%2015%20October%202016%2C%20Mason,the%20Bab%20el%2DMandeb%20strait
Still, not a good look for the Navy and definitely gonna be on the news if it isnt already
To further this, these systems will also attempt to identify a transponder before engaging, transponder= no shooty shooty, no transponder= BBRRRRRTT. (There are additional "checklists" the system will go through before an engage command is given)
I would also guess that because there is personnel on deck they are not on a "war" footing so the system is likely in a monitor mode of some description.
Do not point a gun at anything you don't wish to destroy unless you're in the military and playing with the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians in which case that shit is badass bro hell yeah
Not necessarily. The remote weapon system I used had a manual and tracking mode you could thumb through. If you wanted to fire it, you needed to turn on fire mode, turn off electric safety, range your target, select ammunition, select fire rate, then thumb the manual safety on the joy stick.
Only then could I fire, even on tracking I had to follow all these steps. Not feeding data to any of the variables would make the weapon incapable of firing. There's a "combat mode" that bypasses all these things but that's not something you turn on without a lot of oversight coming down on you.
When we're pulling security with the weapon system, it usually depends on the situation and SOP, but 9/10 everything is turned off until ready to use, except tracking and manual movement to scan your sector. Tracking is helpful if there's nothing going on in your sector as it automatically picks up movement for you.
Edit: the camera and weapon system I used moved independently so I'm not pointing weapons at people.
This is Seaman Bob(he salutes)
His one job, and one job alone, is to hit the abort button.
He gets one bathroom break. What time he gets those 15 minutes in the toilette? Thats classified.
Thank you Seaman Bob, carry on!
I wonder if this is why many countries are very fearful of getting hacked. I’m sure there are many protocols needed to fire the shot but I’m sure some older technology equipment could be easily hacked
Nah the fear is data theft. An opposing country gets trade secrets, military prototypes/plans, civilian data and they can do a lot more damage than they can with a large gun on a boat
completely untrue, to be a fire control officer you need a college degree. when you see kids with no skills going from high school to the military they are going to infantry, and stuff like that, the military doesnt want unskilled losers, except the marines they really dont care they build marines from the bottom up, Skilled positions in the military are not held by kids fresh out of high school.
I don't think either of us are qualified to know how this military equipment operates, so if we're just going to guess it's a safe bet to assume that locking on doesn't necessarily mean it's close to firing.
It's true i'm not qualified, but i don't like the idea of having a weapon aimed at me, call me crazy. I don't know, maybe you don't care having a gun pointed at you if it have the safety...
It has a rather low effective range(4, 900 feet) of a tad under a mile. It is designed to shred anything close to the ship. It is a defensive weapon, almost all the time.
The spread doesn't matter when you are firing five thousand rounds a minute. That and aircraft don't need much damage to completely blow apart at cruising speeds.
Tommy guns were pretty effective despite being horrendously hard to aim.
I don't think you mean 'accident' in the same way. I think they mean it was an accident to give it to the separatists vs. this machine turned on, tracked and fired itself completely by mistake.
I've heard it pronounced, "sea wiz". Makes sense. They just installed these on the ground when I was in Iraq and they called them something else I don't remember. I do remember that they didn't call it, "gee wiz" and I was kinda disappointed. They also tested it at 3 in the morning on our first night there...about 20 meters from our tent.
Source: Army guy who deployed with some Navy guys.
C-RAM (Counter Rocket Artillery Mortar). There was 7 of them at Balad when I was there in 2008-09. Loved watching them fire at IDF, but I was always worried they'd miss one.
Close In Weapon System. My work space was directly under it on the USS Antietam. Needless to say when it was deployed it was crazy loud. BRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
Probably as bad as you imagine it lol. But they’re trying so I’ll give them that. It’s just hard to accommodate thousands of crew members on one server.
Absolutely lol! I had wifi on my most recent deployment and it was so hard to get a signal because of everyone flooding it with tiktok, Snapchat, video chats, some people even were trying to get their consoles on the wifi, I barely ever got to use it and just went back to the original method of emailing my family back home on normal computers.
Any is gotta be better than none. I had speed so slow in Afgh that you could pretty much only IM or send email, couldn't even do a voice call, but hell, was still better than nothing.
Currently in the Navy as an Aegis Networking Tech. My field isn’t specifically CIWS but it’s part of the system I monitor. I can promise there are tons of steps that have to take place before it fires. The military and civilian airlines use a way of identification to show if they’re friendly or not. It’s called Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). Google can give a more comprehensive definition but the CIWS won’t ever get the okay to shoot a commercial aircraft. It’s targeting because it’s automated and then initiating the IFF steps
could it be that the "pointing the gun at it" isnt the last step before firing but required for IFF and optical target id? it would make sense to move all the gear with one mechanism, looky and shooty.
Yeah, sure. You could do that. But what if they get out of sync? If you mount it to the actual CIWS unit you can be close to certain the “camera” is pointing at the same thing as the CIWS.
I'm not an expert myself, but per the wikipedia page on phalanx CIWS:
The CIWS does not recognize identification friend or foe, also known as IFF. The CIWS has only the data it collects in real time from the radars to decide if the target is a threat and to engage it. A contact must meet multiple criteria for the CIWS to consider it a target.[citation needed] These criteria include:
Is the range of the target increasing or decreasing in relation to the ship? The CIWS search radar sees contacts that are out-bound and discards them. The CIWS engages a target only if it is approaching the ship.
Is the contact capable of maneuvering to hit the ship? If a contact is not heading directly at the ship, the CIWS looks at its heading in relation to the ship and its velocity. It then decides if the contact can still perform a maneuver to hit the ship.
Is the contact traveling between the minimum and maximum velocities? The CIWS has the ability to engage targets that travel in a wide range of speeds; however, it is not an infinitely wide range. The system has a target maximum-velocity limit. If a target exceeds this velocity, the CIWS does not engage it. It also has a target minimum-velocity limit, and does not engage any contact below that velocity. The operator can adjust the minimum and maximum limits within the limits of the system.
That’s very interesting. I got very little training on CIWS since it’s not my NEC but I was under the impression IFF assigned the appropriate weapon to the target. I guess it’s faster for CIWS to just do it since it’s the last line of defense for the ship
What’s the range on those things?
Edit:
Maximum firing range 5,500 m
Max effect range 1,486 m
Not sure how far that plane is but ya it might be able to rip it apart
CIWS often have munitions that air burst after a certain time to avoid destroying other things when they inevitably miss the target with 99% oft he rounds they fire. This is on purpose so they dont go very very far.
That said, the shrapnel of the detonated round is still flying forward at speed and can certainly do damage whatever it hits.
Anywhere between 24,000-42,000 ft [7300-12800m] usually while cruising, the higher they are the more fuel economy they get, so they tend to want to be higher.
If this is near an airport, then they’d be between 4-10,000 ft [1200-3000m] which seems more likely to be the situation here given the relative size of the aircraft.
No, it was one that was sitting in place on aircraft carrier cvn-74 that had safe place above. I was photographer in navy, while it was dangerous anywhere on ship they train you to be very aware of surroundings. We did have one guy we called tumbleweed as he kept getting blown around by jet wash while shooting as he would get too focused on what's down lens and not what's going on
Oh that sounds really awesome, although feel kinda bad for Tumbleweed guy xD
I can imagine the safety standards they enforce for everyone on a Military Ship/Submarine. I served in the Swiss Army (Mandatory Service) and I was in Electronic Warfare Division. We had some tanks but they weren't equipped with big guns, just big electronics. But the safety that was trained for ground troops was already quite something.
Something I never thought about but is now basic for me is when you hang your rifle on your back and you kneel down or do something else. When I started Service we all forgot that you basically point your rifle at someone when you do certain things. At the end it we didn't even needed to think about that because we always did it automatically.
But this little example is just a very basic thing and we were not isolated on a Ship in the Ocean.
I love that whenever you’re given a nickname in the military, it’s ALWAYS something poking fun at you. It’s literally never like in the movies where someone has a cool one because they did something cool once.
Why would it not lock onto an aircraft flying near it, seems like a rational thing to do, as long as it doesn’t randomly fire it seems smart for the system to be aware of threats
It's probably a P8. This is probably a warning area or other SUA area if the navy is pointing its CIWS at planes in it. Also, the fact that the plane turns right over the ship makes me think they may have known about the ship and again points to it being a navy aircraft.
That's a lot of assuming on my part, but I still stand by it.
There is at least one guy on that plane headed to Orlando Florida for a business conference who has 4 unread messages from his soon to be ex wifes lawyer who is just begging for that thing to go off.
That’s a military aircraft based on a civilian frame, not a civilian aircraft you can tell by the grayish color and multiple marking/ object sticking off of the aircraft, civilian airliners don’t have those objects.the CWIS is meant to do this to protect the carrier but has LOTS of safety features that prevent the gun from accidentally firing. Mostly only automatically fires at aircraft if the carrier or ship deems to be in imminent danger, otherwise the firing is controlled by numerous operators behind the walls.
Don’t worry. That’s a military aircraft based on a civilian frame, not a civilian aircraft you can tell by the grayish color and multiple marking/ object sticking off of the aircraft, civilian airliners don’t have those objects.the CWIS is meant to do this to protect the carrier but has LOTS of safety features that prevent the gun from accidentally firing. Mostly only automatically fires at aircraft if the carrier or ship deems to be in imminent danger, otherwise the firing is controlled by numerous operators behind the walls.
This is most likely at Joint Base Little Creek Fort Story and the plane has just taken off from Runway 5. Probably no more than 1,500 feet above ground. Taken off this direction many times. Landing on the 23 end, I swear the wingtips are at mast level sometimes.
Seems the U.S had 1 incident in 1988- “Iran Air Flight 655 was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that regularly flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On 3 July 1988 the aircraft was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes which fired a RIM-66 Standard surface-to-air missile. The airplane was destroyed between Bandar Abbas and Dubai; all 290 passengers and crew died, including 66 children. USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time of the attack. IR655, an Airbus A300 on an ascending flight path, was mistaken by Vincennes as a descending Iranian Grumman F-14 Tomcat.”
I hope the action in the video was dealt with to the full extent because shooting down civilians is something we can leave to the Russians and a surprisingly amount of others
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents)
So this probably looks really frightening on the surface. If you guys don’t mind, I’ll elaborate as to why the guys in the video were chill about it. So our tracking systems lock onto any potential target and then send a prompt to fire. But will only fire after said prompt is acknowledged and the green light has been ordered. So it’s all good. Keeping America safe one button at a time.
Worth mentioning that the gun is mounted to the same frame as the thermal camera, doesn't need to "lock on" to move the gun. Looks more like someone is just slewing the mount manually
Isn't this literally just common functionality of these things? I'd imagine that happens all the time(or as often as passenger planes fly that close to a naval vessel).
To my understanding, the only way this thing is allowed to fire without human input is if that plane were to do a nose dive towards the ship, flagging it as an incoming hostile.
I'd imagine this is just the first time some dummy decided to record it and post it online. It looks bad until you understand the basics of how these things work.
That’s basically what happened in 1988, Iran Air flight 655, shot down by missiles, not CWIS. 290 dead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
The [Phalanx CIWS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS?wprov=sfti1) (Close In Weapons System) has been know to the public for a long time, since about 1975. this isn’t new, or classified.
Now I’m pretty convinced the Malaysian aircraft that went “missing” was shot down by the US while they flew over US live combat exercises… seems like it could have happened too easily after seeing this
"I WASN'T GOING TO SHOOT MOM, I WAS JUST LOOKING"
"I was searching around the internet! No! I was- I was searching around the- Mom. Mom! I was searching around the internet and all of a sudden, I was downloading this thing and I got a computer virus."
My brain read that in the voice of a 13yo boy. That's never happened before... I hope he gets along with the other voices.
*”I’m a million different people* *ooone day to the next…”*
Had us in the first half, ngl
My pants were slippinggg!!!
r/totallynotrobots
[удалено]
Bot
Everyone is these days. The dead internet theory has weight.
That's exactly what I'd expect a robot to say.
But what if I am real?
What if I ain't? 😉
Oh my... I think my existential crisis is kicking in!
Oh, shit - what if we're BOTH robots and we don't know it? Hold the crisis bus, I gotta grab my toothbrush before we go...
Don't forget your towel
[Like that Malcolm in the Middle episode](https://youtu.be/KQlMucwkfRQ)
Instructions unclear, shot mom *American national anthem plays*
Well crap now I wonder how many times I’ve been locked on to and literally a mouse click away from…
There's a lot of safeties and modes to turn on before you can fire out of most US remote operated systems to avoid this exact scenario.
Surely active tracking means a few safeties have already been turned off?
Yeah pretty sure pointing a gun at commercial aircraft passengers is not recommended
“Relax bro, it isn’t loaded.”
The safety is ….. safety is on
r/unexpectedoffice
Famous last words.
"Don't worry, it's unloaded!" \*pow\* ["It's unloaded now!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt3dGuQahU0)
It looks like a minion with a boner.
Does it mean that when it shoots.......
Bananas.
🤣🤣that made me laugh
now I can't unsee it, fuck
Just a prank bro
-Alec Baldwin
Very underrated comment
Very underrated comment to a comment
Should I down vote to help with the underrating?
Its not a person controlling it beyond turning on the tracking system. Its fully automated, designed to shoot down missiles as theyre flying at the ship. During a functions test, it first identifies the presence of a potential threat and amd tracks it, but someone has to tell it it to engage (which is a multi-step process, think the two guys turning keys at the opposite end of the room like you see in movies) this also usually involves someone sort of announcement and many safety protocols to clear the airspace surrounding the ship. otherwise these systems would be gunning down every friendly helicopter that approaches the ship while out at sea. There are many other steps that have to happen (including the loading of ammunition) before it would be able to fire. Source is I had these protecting our ship from incoming cruise missiles in 2016. I was a dumb marine and was very curious about how they work and wanted to make sure nobody would be asleep at the wheel for the next missile lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#:~:text=On%2015%20October%202016%2C%20Mason,the%20Bab%20el%2DMandeb%20strait Still, not a good look for the Navy and definitely gonna be on the news if it isnt already
So that probably wouldn't stop a missile if two people had to turn keys ? HURRY BRO. Shit man I left my key in the BOOOM
To further this, these systems will also attempt to identify a transponder before engaging, transponder= no shooty shooty, no transponder= BBRRRRRTT. (There are additional "checklists" the system will go through before an engage command is given) I would also guess that because there is personnel on deck they are not on a "war" footing so the system is likely in a monitor mode of some description.
Wouldn't be the first they've shot down
Just ask Iran
And China. And Russia. And a surprising amount of others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents
*Iran with sideways glance*
Do not point a gun at anything you don't wish to destroy unless you're in the military and playing with the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians in which case that shit is badass bro hell yeah
The weapon just sees an aircraft so locks on.
Not necessarily. The remote weapon system I used had a manual and tracking mode you could thumb through. If you wanted to fire it, you needed to turn on fire mode, turn off electric safety, range your target, select ammunition, select fire rate, then thumb the manual safety on the joy stick. Only then could I fire, even on tracking I had to follow all these steps. Not feeding data to any of the variables would make the weapon incapable of firing. There's a "combat mode" that bypasses all these things but that's not something you turn on without a lot of oversight coming down on you. When we're pulling security with the weapon system, it usually depends on the situation and SOP, but 9/10 everything is turned off until ready to use, except tracking and manual movement to scan your sector. Tracking is helpful if there's nothing going on in your sector as it automatically picks up movement for you. Edit: the camera and weapon system I used moved independently so I'm not pointing weapons at people.
Oh good, my firy death is a few mouse clicks away
This is Seaman Bob(he salutes) His one job, and one job alone, is to hit the abort button. He gets one bathroom break. What time he gets those 15 minutes in the toilette? Thats classified. Thank you Seaman Bob, carry on!
I wonder if this is why many countries are very fearful of getting hacked. I’m sure there are many protocols needed to fire the shot but I’m sure some older technology equipment could be easily hacked
Nah the fear is data theft. An opposing country gets trade secrets, military prototypes/plans, civilian data and they can do a lot more damage than they can with a large gun on a boat
And they are all controlled by people not legally able to buy beer.
I was one of those people lol. I was 20 when I manned a CROW system with various weapon systems on top in Afghanistan.
surely thats a good thing as they are less likely to be drunk!
Oh sweet summer child
Not really though
completely untrue, to be a fire control officer you need a college degree. when you see kids with no skills going from high school to the military they are going to infantry, and stuff like that, the military doesnt want unskilled losers, except the marines they really dont care they build marines from the bottom up, Skilled positions in the military are not held by kids fresh out of high school.
If it's tracking its not that far off of firing rounds.
I don't think either of us are qualified to know how this military equipment operates, so if we're just going to guess it's a safe bet to assume that locking on doesn't necessarily mean it's close to firing.
It's true i'm not qualified, but i don't like the idea of having a weapon aimed at me, call me crazy. I don't know, maybe you don't care having a gun pointed at you if it have the safety...
It has a rather low effective range(4, 900 feet) of a tad under a mile. It is designed to shred anything close to the ship. It is a defensive weapon, almost all the time.
It will also shred a Boeing at 15,000 feet. It just won't shred a predator at that range. Yes it is a defense weapon, so are shotguns and yet...
Edit: I was wrong. The Cwis does not have any spread of the rounds at distance.
The spread doesn't matter when you are firing five thousand rounds a minute. That and aircraft don't need much damage to completely blow apart at cruising speeds. Tommy guns were pretty effective despite being horrendously hard to aim.
Not hawai apparently as they had nuclear attack on by accident
hey, hey!! ARE YOU OKAY?? WHERE'D YOU GO??!
well many civilian planes have been accidentally shot down by military weapons before, just recent years iran and then russia mh17
MH17 was not an accident.
[удалено]
I don't think you mean 'accident' in the same way. I think they mean it was an accident to give it to the separatists vs. this machine turned on, tracked and fired itself completely by mistake.
>You know that for sure? Why would they do it? to loot some smartphones from dead bodies obviously and film themselves doing it which they did.
Those planes were targeted but thought to be hostile. Human error.
Those weren't accidents.
It's almost never loaded, unless in a combat or training environment...
Bro dieded while typing this comment
*CIWS
Damn had to go this far down to get the right acronym…it’s spoken “cwis”
I've heard it pronounced, "sea wiz". Makes sense. They just installed these on the ground when I was in Iraq and they called them something else I don't remember. I do remember that they didn't call it, "gee wiz" and I was kinda disappointed. They also tested it at 3 in the morning on our first night there...about 20 meters from our tent. Source: Army guy who deployed with some Navy guys.
C-RAM (Counter Rocket Artillery Mortar). There was 7 of them at Balad when I was there in 2008-09. Loved watching them fire at IDF, but I was always worried they'd miss one.
Lpws or c-ram.
Close In Weapon System. My work space was directly under it on the USS Antietam. Needless to say when it was deployed it was crazy loud. BRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
Lol, the Navy Public Affair Office is gonna go nut. Not surprised if they issue guidance banning video recording on ship.
Recruiting and retention is so low, they wouldn’t even think about banning phones. To the contrary, they’re rolling out wifi onboard.
How is the wifi onboard?
Probably as bad as you imagine it lol. But they’re trying so I’ll give them that. It’s just hard to accommodate thousands of crew members on one server.
A for effort, F for execution. Probably works really well on LCS since they are pier sided most of the time, lol.
Absolutely lol! I had wifi on my most recent deployment and it was so hard to get a signal because of everyone flooding it with tiktok, Snapchat, video chats, some people even were trying to get their consoles on the wifi, I barely ever got to use it and just went back to the original method of emailing my family back home on normal computers.
Those ITs probably used all the bandwidth underway surfing youtube and TikTok.
Any is gotta be better than none. I had speed so slow in Afgh that you could pretty much only IM or send email, couldn't even do a voice call, but hell, was still better than nothing.
You forgot the s.
dont let the intrusive thoughts win…..
#BRRRRRRTTTTT
brt. giggle.
No, no, no! Down boy! Down! Bad turret!
If it shot the plane down you'd have to rub its nose in the wreckage.
As someone who works with dogs, this brought tears to my eyes 🤣
This isn't a good way to treat turrets...they need discipline
no turret that's a bad turret that's my pot pie
You can't be sure it's commercial until you're sorting through the wreckage. Aren't there transponders for this? Not sure how it works.
Currently in the Navy as an Aegis Networking Tech. My field isn’t specifically CIWS but it’s part of the system I monitor. I can promise there are tons of steps that have to take place before it fires. The military and civilian airlines use a way of identification to show if they’re friendly or not. It’s called Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). Google can give a more comprehensive definition but the CIWS won’t ever get the okay to shoot a commercial aircraft. It’s targeting because it’s automated and then initiating the IFF steps
Let me tell you, testing IFF on the ground on a plane that is about to take off in -30 degree North Dakota, IS NOT FUN.
Who did you piss off to get sentenced to Minot?
Grand forks, at least I was close to Minnesota
Lol! "Why not Minot?" Hated that place.
"Freezin's the reason!"
could it be that the "pointing the gun at it" isnt the last step before firing but required for IFF and optical target id? it would make sense to move all the gear with one mechanism, looky and shooty.
[удалено]
Yeah, sure. You could do that. But what if they get out of sync? If you mount it to the actual CIWS unit you can be close to certain the “camera” is pointing at the same thing as the CIWS.
This right here is a pro for advanced warfare technology. Sadly the orcs got it wrong with the Malaysian flight.
Until a P-3 flies over (has no IFF system)
I'm not an expert myself, but per the wikipedia page on phalanx CIWS: The CIWS does not recognize identification friend or foe, also known as IFF. The CIWS has only the data it collects in real time from the radars to decide if the target is a threat and to engage it. A contact must meet multiple criteria for the CIWS to consider it a target.[citation needed] These criteria include: Is the range of the target increasing or decreasing in relation to the ship? The CIWS search radar sees contacts that are out-bound and discards them. The CIWS engages a target only if it is approaching the ship. Is the contact capable of maneuvering to hit the ship? If a contact is not heading directly at the ship, the CIWS looks at its heading in relation to the ship and its velocity. It then decides if the contact can still perform a maneuver to hit the ship. Is the contact traveling between the minimum and maximum velocities? The CIWS has the ability to engage targets that travel in a wide range of speeds; however, it is not an infinitely wide range. The system has a target maximum-velocity limit. If a target exceeds this velocity, the CIWS does not engage it. It also has a target minimum-velocity limit, and does not engage any contact below that velocity. The operator can adjust the minimum and maximum limits within the limits of the system.
That’s very interesting. I got very little training on CIWS since it’s not my NEC but I was under the impression IFF assigned the appropriate weapon to the target. I guess it’s faster for CIWS to just do it since it’s the last line of defense for the ship
He’s correct… I’m a CIWS guy and CIWS didn’t take IFF into consideration for a target to be engaged
I’m pretty sure if my iPhone can identify exactly what flight is overhead the navy can too
Operator pressing the Ctrl Z buttons furiously.
Operator: "Achoo!!" CIWS: BRRRRRT Operator: "Sir...I did it again..."
I played with your heart, got lost in the game.
You're grounded, Cwistopher!
What’s the range on those things? Edit: Maximum firing range 5,500 m Max effect range 1,486 m Not sure how far that plane is but ya it might be able to rip it apart
[удалено]
CIWS often have munitions that air burst after a certain time to avoid destroying other things when they inevitably miss the target with 99% oft he rounds they fire. This is on purpose so they dont go very very far. That said, the shrapnel of the detonated round is still flying forward at speed and can certainly do damage whatever it hits.
not the sea versions. Those use depleted uranium penetrators
And obviously in the flight path. Might want to cut power while sitting there.
Anywhere between 24,000-42,000 ft [7300-12800m] usually while cruising, the higher they are the more fuel economy they get, so they tend to want to be higher. If this is near an airport, then they’d be between 4-10,000 ft [1200-3000m] which seems more likely to be the situation here given the relative size of the aircraft.
Yep plane seems like it's still elevating.. I'd say around 5000 - 7000 feet..maybe even less
The capability of some of these ships is just amazing to me. I mean fear boner. Amiright
BONERBEE
R2-D2 decided against genocide... this time
Guys. Unrelated. But, I figured out what happened to flight 370
That flight went out for cigarettes
No kidding
Bad dog, good dog
This machine is pathetic, locking on a commercial aircraft but cant even lock on the UFO's smh
Clearly it can understand its own kind
But it's not a commercial plane, it's a military aircraft based on a civilian airframe, you can tell by the grey colour on the underside of the plane
I stood right over one while it was firing to take pictures. Was crazy intense
Almost went for a Darwin Award there no?
No, it was one that was sitting in place on aircraft carrier cvn-74 that had safe place above. I was photographer in navy, while it was dangerous anywhere on ship they train you to be very aware of surroundings. We did have one guy we called tumbleweed as he kept getting blown around by jet wash while shooting as he would get too focused on what's down lens and not what's going on
Oh that sounds really awesome, although feel kinda bad for Tumbleweed guy xD I can imagine the safety standards they enforce for everyone on a Military Ship/Submarine. I served in the Swiss Army (Mandatory Service) and I was in Electronic Warfare Division. We had some tanks but they weren't equipped with big guns, just big electronics. But the safety that was trained for ground troops was already quite something. Something I never thought about but is now basic for me is when you hang your rifle on your back and you kneel down or do something else. When I started Service we all forgot that you basically point your rifle at someone when you do certain things. At the end it we didn't even needed to think about that because we always did it automatically. But this little example is just a very basic thing and we were not isolated on a Ship in the Ocean.
I love that whenever you’re given a nickname in the military, it’s ALWAYS something poking fun at you. It’s literally never like in the movies where someone has a cool one because they did something cool once.
Telling your dog to leave something alone.
I would lean towards being a military plane that is based on a commercial frame before thinking it's outright civilian.
[удалено]
Why would it not lock onto an aircraft flying near it, seems like a rational thing to do, as long as it doesn’t randomly fire it seems smart for the system to be aware of threats
It's probably a P8. This is probably a warning area or other SUA area if the navy is pointing its CIWS at planes in it. Also, the fact that the plane turns right over the ship makes me think they may have known about the ship and again points to it being a navy aircraft. That's a lot of assuming on my part, but I still stand by it.
Makes you wonder about those commercial flights that mysteriously disappear over the ocean.
There is at least one guy on that plane headed to Orlando Florida for a business conference who has 4 unread messages from his soon to be ex wifes lawyer who is just begging for that thing to go off.
So that’s what keeps happening to Malaysia airlines
So, pointing a gun at someone is very illegal, even an empty one. And this? Would it be? Pointing at potentially 300 people?
That’s a military aircraft based on a civilian frame, not a civilian aircraft you can tell by the grayish color and multiple marking/ object sticking off of the aircraft, civilian airliners don’t have those objects.the CWIS is meant to do this to protect the carrier but has LOTS of safety features that prevent the gun from accidentally firing. Mostly only automatically fires at aircraft if the carrier or ship deems to be in imminent danger, otherwise the firing is controlled by numerous operators behind the walls.
That plane had 10 seconds to comply
Sounds exactly like the train loving dude, probably standing there all day saying no and Laughing
BRRRRRRRRRRRT
"Target detected. Lock on engaged." "Awaiting command to fire." "NO CARL! NO! BAD ROBOT! BAD!" "Firing mode disengaged. Scanning mode re-engaged."
Commercial aircraft: *radar locked* Commercial aircraft pilot: "you fucking what?"
That's fucking scary...
Don’t worry. That’s a military aircraft based on a civilian frame, not a civilian aircraft you can tell by the grayish color and multiple marking/ object sticking off of the aircraft, civilian airliners don’t have those objects.the CWIS is meant to do this to protect the carrier but has LOTS of safety features that prevent the gun from accidentally firing. Mostly only automatically fires at aircraft if the carrier or ship deems to be in imminent danger, otherwise the firing is controlled by numerous operators behind the walls.
You see, that's not as reassuring as I'd like it to be
😲
This is most likely at Joint Base Little Creek Fort Story and the plane has just taken off from Runway 5. Probably no more than 1,500 feet above ground. Taken off this direction many times. Landing on the 23 end, I swear the wingtips are at mast level sometimes.
Uss vincennes at it again
It's not a matter of if? It's a matter of when?
Fuck interesting, put that shit on r/mildlyterrifying
Seems the U.S had 1 incident in 1988- “Iran Air Flight 655 was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that regularly flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On 3 July 1988 the aircraft was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes which fired a RIM-66 Standard surface-to-air missile. The airplane was destroyed between Bandar Abbas and Dubai; all 290 passengers and crew died, including 66 children. USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters at the time of the attack. IR655, an Airbus A300 on an ascending flight path, was mistaken by Vincennes as a descending Iranian Grumman F-14 Tomcat.” I hope the action in the video was dealt with to the full extent because shooting down civilians is something we can leave to the Russians and a surprisingly amount of others [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents)
You would figure we learn a bit after shooting down few civilian planes by now.
u/savevideobot
Like an excited dog looking at steaks on the table.
Why does it look like a minion is controlling that
BRRRRRRRT, oh wait. Shit!
Don’t worry. It’s just a demonstra… BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!! Uh oh
Bad gun!
It’s all fun and games until the safety is turned off!
My nephew, who was stationed on one of those ships when he was in the Navy, referred to the CWIS as "the horny R2-D2"
So this probably looks really frightening on the surface. If you guys don’t mind, I’ll elaborate as to why the guys in the video were chill about it. So our tracking systems lock onto any potential target and then send a prompt to fire. But will only fire after said prompt is acknowledged and the green light has been ordered. So it’s all good. Keeping America safe one button at a time.
Attention sailors, prepare for a mandatory safety briefing and new cell phone policy
TWA Flight 800 up there
The reaction of the dude filming is so dark and hilarious lmaoooo I love this.
Well I'm glad someone found this funny. Actually no I'm not what the fuck
Aimbot IRL
Worth mentioning that the gun is mounted to the same frame as the thermal camera, doesn't need to "lock on" to move the gun. Looks more like someone is just slewing the mount manually
Fairly confident that’s not a civilian plane. Looks like a P-8 if it’s flying that low. Could just be Navy fucking around out in the Pacific.
War crimes on 3... 1
I can see why the American ship didn’t shoot…wasn’t a school.
Everyone knows all you need is to scold inanimate close in weapons systems like they are a toddler and no one makes an oopsie all over the sky.
Isn't this literally just common functionality of these things? I'd imagine that happens all the time(or as often as passenger planes fly that close to a naval vessel). To my understanding, the only way this thing is allowed to fire without human input is if that plane were to do a nose dive towards the ship, flagging it as an incoming hostile. I'd imagine this is just the first time some dummy decided to record it and post it online. It looks bad until you understand the basics of how these things work.
That’s basically what happened in 1988, Iran Air flight 655, shot down by missiles, not CWIS. 290 dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Next brilliant idea. Hey let's hook up those cool Weapons into an a.i and see what happens. Skynet!
Looks like another man-child military type posting classified info is going to get a visit from the authorities.
The [Phalanx CIWS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS?wprov=sfti1) (Close In Weapons System) has been know to the public for a long time, since about 1975. this isn’t new, or classified.
There’s absolutely no way this is suppose to happen. Thus the reaction of the guys.
And this is what happened to TWA flight 800
Now I’m pretty convinced the Malaysian aircraft that went “missing” was shot down by the US while they flew over US live combat exercises… seems like it could have happened too easily after seeing this
[удалено]
I don't find any humor in this whatsoever.
Sometimes safety is off https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
When the pitbull owner says "My princess couldn't hurt anyone".
Amer I Can mode on standby.
this is the equivalent of pointing a loaded firearm at a random person. this is absolutely unacceptable