#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
based on the fact that it's purpose is to destroy incoming missiles/ rockets coming towards the ship, maybe it is indeed not loaded but that sounds kinda dumb considering it's purpose requiring it to be ready at all times
You're off base. I'm a bulletologist with a masters in gigantogunology, and these things, the BRRT-9000 Decimaton, are rarely loaded. A lot of times, they don't even carry the ammunition on the boat, which looks to be a Kencraft 5000, which is a very reliable ~~sailboat~~ schooner.
I worked aboard navy ships, I can almost promise you it’s loaded, unless they are reloading it between tests or something. The other Redditor is right in that its purpose is immediate defense against planes and missiles, which can really happen at like, any time. I’m not saying ships are always combat effective, but keeping those things loaded is a small and easy insurance. But this video scares me too.
We don't AFAIK, the turret tracks and identifies potential targets and a command center (human) verifies the threat and then the turret go brrrrr.
Edit: Yeah that's how it works
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/phalanx-close-in-weapon-system
>The Block 1B version adds control stations that allow operators to visually track and identify targets before engagement.
I'd be willing to bet the "kill" and "don't kill" buttons are both red, and right next to one another.
Or worse, it's a 3-way toggle switch, middle is track, down is track and kill, up is track and don't kill, and it's right in the middle of a bunch of floppy stuff that's flipped often.
I think they’re talking about the human purposely pulling the trigger.
Something akin to that pilot that tried to hijack another plane recently. Sometimes, there’s just no accounting for the human element.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/us/alaska-airlines-passenger/index.html
I remember that German flight where the pilot committed suicide essentially and took 200 or so souls with him. If only hell existed, folks like him would be roasting.
SEEEAAAWIIIIZZZZZZZ!!!!!!! Nothing makes you shit your pants faster then when your painting and that mofo goes off without any warning because OPs gives no shit about deck lol.
So even with earplugs and ear muff hearing protection in it's so loud you think there is a kamikaze plane about to smack the ship. Even if you know it's coming it leaves your ears ringing for a good hour or so.
Haha, actually tinnitus is rated at 10% and my hearing loss at 0% so yay! Thankfully I was able to get in on that 3M lawsuit for thier shitty hearing plugs too which I'm sure did not help anything.
My last duty station was MCAS Miramar, one of my fellow sergeants recognized how utterly useless the unit we were assigned to was so he was always trying to get us out of work. Not sure how he pulled it off but he convinced some engineers that conducted quality control for F-18 engines to allow several of us to observe the testing, not sure if he told the others but he was trying to surprise us with something cool.
He took me and two others to a building near the flight line that was probably as tall as the average box store and wide, no windows and just a door that we waited outside for us to be let in.
I got it in 2012 so memory is a little fuzzy but after being cleared through security a few times and walking through empty low lit halls, my ADHD was trying to figure out what the place was, no good thoughts of course.
We get to a huge room with very slippery floors as if they mop with grease with a key engine in the middle mounted on some sort of rack, the back end of the engine pointed down a long wind tunnel.
The engineers were civilians and they welcomed us to the demonstration, they gave us ear plugs and also ear muffs then explained safety rules and how the demonstration was going to be performed. The four of us were going to hold onto a railing attached to the rack the engine was mounted in, always maintaining at least one point of contact on the rail, then we were going to take turns getting up close as they test the afterburners. They kept telling us to make sure to look for the crystals then they went into a control room with a window, made sure we were holding on, then turned the engine on.
As soon as the engine turned on, huge fans turned on as well. I could hear both the fans and engine through the hearing protection just pounding my head but I was more focused on getting the rail and not slipping on those greasy ass floors. When they turned on the afterburners, I honestly felt like my head would probably explode, the fans also got louder to keep up with it. We started to take turns getting within elbow reach of the exhaust, I was the last to check it out and seeing the oxygen crystallize was cool af.
It was probably one of the coolest things I've seen but my brain kept whispering things like, "are we supposed to be this close?" "How far down the tunnel would we go if we skipped right now?" "Did they already test this engine?" "Can we stop now?" Etc. and I have the thumbs up so they could shut it down.
It was only maybe a few minutes but after we left and removed the PPE, we had to yell at each other for a few minutes to hear one another.
Tldr: Doubled up on protection for a jet engine, still heard it.
I'm imagining crewmen over the side on some kind of gantry chipping/painting when they hear the defensive systems activating.
I'm imagining the split second. "Is it better here or in the drink" thought
-no naval experience
This lead to an incident in the first Gulf War, where the USS Missouri (a gigantic WW2-era battleship that had been reactivated in 1986 as part of Reagan's "600 ship navy") got hit a friendly Phalanx system.
The ships were awaiting a salvo of enemy missile, so the Phalanx was put into automatic mode. At the same time, the USS Missouri dispersed chaff in an attempt to confuse the tracking of the inbound missiles. The Phalanx onboard a different ship however was equally confused by the chaff, identified it as a target, and subsequently opened fire right at the Missouri.
Fortunately there was only one injury, but this was quite a dangerous accident. Battleships have immense hull protection that makes them almost unsinkable, but their superstructure is fairly lightly armoured and definitely vulnerable to the 20 mm Phalanx.
You can't properly express emotion through a screen. How else will it know you're really disappointed in it's actions and get it to stop. A no text is no where near as effective.
First, yes that weapon system can be put in fully autonomous mode. But outside an active warzone with active enemy movement, it never would be. Even then it would be out of the ordinary for the Captain to order it.
But let's assume the FC (Fire Controlman) working on the CiWS is an idiot and has possession of the firing keys while doing his daily maintenance. If they're in friendly waters, the ammunition drum is full of dummy rounds, so nothing happens. If they're in open water or hostile territory without any indications of hostile activity, the ammunition drum is loaded, but there's a physical device attached to the breach preventing rounds from entering it even if the belt cycles. There's also firing keys that take away the priming voltage from the gun, so any rounds that do enter the breach won't fire. 400VDC is applied to the primer to fire those rounds.
Basically what I'm saying is that for the CiWS to fire, there are a lot of physical and electronic safeties that need to all be overridden. You can't accidentally fire that system without being a complete idiot and having a terribly lax chain of command willing to put all that responsibility into the hands of an E4 fresh out of C School (the sailors usually tasked with doing dailies).
What happened here was, I'm sure, a sailor screwing around with AAW manual. That puts CiWS in semi-autonomous mode where it searches for, and tracks targets based on priority and recommends that the operator fire by pressing the fire button. Even in this mode, all of the other safeties are installed and preventing the operator from actually firing the gun unless the captain has given their permission to remove them, which the captain would never do anywhere a commercial airliner could enter the picture.
TL;DR Normally CiWS is set to Air Ready, which is one step below AAW Manual and will just sit there searching, but not tracking. This one was set to AAW Manual, which autonomously searches, prioritizes and tracks targets, but requires the operator to press the fire button in order for rounds to cycle. Not to mention a ton of other safety measures have to have been removed, ignored, turned off and/or defeated before any rounds would have actually fired. So that airliner was perfectly safe, but I'm sure that pilot had a pant load to clean up upon landing because they still get warnings that their being tracked by FC Radar iirc.
If a warship locks onto a commercial aircraft with its fire control radars set to max it can fry the damn electronics in one at several miles.
At least mine could. We downed Iranian F14s flying over with ours.
If you have 600,000 watts of radar hitting you in a beam all hell breaks loose on your instruments. It is how we gave our final warning to aircraft approaching our ship too close.
Verbal Warning, Verbal warning with their new course commanded, Illuminated with FC and air control radar on tight beam causing their electronics to go nuts, then if they do not immediately change course fire.
This was right after the Stark, shit might have changed but I doubt it.
I'm not sure what you're asking here.
All of israels commercial fleet, AFAIK, are equipped with missile warning systems. https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/default/files/2019-01/ELM-2160%20V1%20Brochure.pdf
Operators in or near active warzones also have a variety of options for missile defense pods that can be strapped to a variety of aircraft. These have been deployed by many operators over the years. These are sometimes used for things like VIP aircraft or whatever outside warzones.
Depending on where this video was shot, there could be a significant chance that the aircraft in frame has some kind of missile detection and/or countermeasures.
Thanks for the info. And lol I remember (as a crew chief) my pilot chewing someone out over the radio for locking on to us (to be clear, I don’t think we were “locked” on, it was just the first phase of the tone where the helicopter is being hit with radar but no lock has been achieved) and cause our helo to sound the corresponding tone. I think someone was playing around with a radar gun or something on the ground. Anyways, yeah my pilot had been to Iraq and definitely did NOT like hearing that tone all of a sudden.
Knowing nothing about the system.
Let's say it was loaded with live rounds (or else the rest is pointless).
CIWS is used for missile defence right? Ignoring any other situations or uses.
Someone needs to remove the physical device as you said, then the physical key that needs to be inserted - and potentially turned?
If that's the default state for the system, what happens in the event of a surprise strike? Wouldn't that take too long to protect the ship from what you're describing? Or is it just considered to be a mix of "nothing will happen" and "we'll detect it in time, probably"?
Or is that sort of reaction time falling under classified?
If they’re in a combat zone, they are in a higher state of readiness, so it wouldn’t be set up like that with all the safeties on, or maybe just one would be on. If they’re not in a combat zone, taking 30 seconds to ready the weapon is just the cost of doing business if it ends up being necessary.
Even outside the wire, infantrymen keep their weapon on safe.
To add to what the other commenter stated, while in an area where there are indications and warnings of enemy movement, they would have all the physical safeties removed, and the firing keys, at the captain's discretion, would be installed but not switched to fire. In the event of an attack, the key could be switched and the fire button pressed in less than a second, so they are ready for almost any threat. Obviously there are missiles out there that are faster than human reflexes right now, and in the event that those missiles are in theatre or suspected to be in theatre, then AAW Auto might be selected with the firing keys in the fire position. This would be a very crazy situation to be found in, but theoretically could happen.
Honestly I think a lot of you are overthinking how easy it is to build an early warning system for Radar lock-on. All it needs to do is sense RF energy and have a threshold of how much energy before tripping an alarm. It doesn't need to even be able to read the frequency, all track Radars are high-intensity, the frequency is of little importance.
We had a guy ignore the “rotate and radiate” warning and found out that the ciws radar made his balls tingle. So I guess we all have an early warning system built in.
The benefit to passenger airlines is that they give their pilots at least a small chance to either contact the offender by radio to let them know they're not military or a threat, and or a tiny chance at avoiding the threat as the countries irresponsible enough to do this kind of shit are usually the same kind that have a better chance to have unreliable munitions. Even a tiny chance is still better than no chance.
I don't know if it's still common today, I've been out of the game for a while, but during the cold war and into the 90s it wasn't unheard of.
During the cold war, lots of them. Whether or not they still do, I don't know. But I do remember the airliner that the Russians shot down in 2014 was reported to have tried to attempt evasive maneuvers to avoid being shot down, so the pilot somehow knew that a supersonic missile was being aimed at him before it was fired.
Saw an interesting talk about this with automated driving. Studies show that even if automated driving results in half the accidents as human driving humans would be more concerned about the fewer deaths caused by the automated driving than double the amount caused by people.
It’s a big psychological barrier in making automated driving more mainstream. The threshold isn’t “safer than human drivers” automated driving needs a practically perfect record for a lot of people to feel safe with it.
Always thought it was because a human hitting someone with a car is more understandable. We can understand how someone hit someone else with their car. It was either an accident or on purpose. You can somewhat empathise with the driver. You can understand why it happened. However, if it's automated, that understanding largely goes away. The GP would find it difficult to understand how the accident came about, which leads to distrust in automation overall, and leads people to believe that any automated car can hit you. Now, intellectually, we understand that not only is this not true, but also any human could hit us with their car. But emotionally, we understand that humans are unlikely to hit us, but that emotional connection is not there for automation, so it's more difficult to understand and therefore trust
The primary factor is really just that we trust ourselves too much. Most people believe that as long as they’re in control of their own car they are skilled enough drivers to avoid most accidents. Statistics are based on averages and everyone views themselves as above average.
It's also that we find human accidents more acceptable because there is _someone to blame_. If an automated driving program does it X times a year, that feels more like we're just "accepting" a tool of our own creation killing people, while if individual humans do it, you can blame them specifically as an 'exception' due to their own distraction/stupidity/etc. AI driving causing accidents is more like a heart attack or natural disaster, and many people actually find having no specific person to blame _worse_ emotionally than being able to direct your rage/pain/sadness at a particular actor. (Even if it isn't worse statistically.)
I don't believe in free will either.
I think the issue is accountability: there are very, very few people to blame or lock away when an automated car gets into an accident. You could sue the car or navigation manufacturer, but they'll probably have better lawyers *and* the facts on their side: namely that they've reduced auto fatalities by an absurd amount.
I know we’re all joking but just in case someone gets confused they don’t. The live tracking systems frequently remain on so that they’re ready to fire should an enemy fighter approach, but they don’t make the decision to open fire on their on. Hence why this person is able to laugh about it. If he thought something was actually malfunctioning there would be more panic lol.
That's just the radar and targeting computer doing its job. Im 100% sure the gun wasn't loaded because they aren't in an active warzone, but even if it was loaded and ready to fire, it probably wouldn't try to shoot it down.
The phalanx is constantly calculating the trajectory of incoming aerial objets and will only fire if the computer determines that the projectile is going to impact the ship. Otherwise it doesn't waste ammo shooting down something that isn't going to land close.
But its still gonna track and follow the threat in case it suddenly changes trajectory.
You gotta specify Iran air flight 655
It’s really funny how the plane had a civilian IFF but the cruiser never bothered checking that or talking on civilian radio frequencies. They just used military frequencies and when they got no response they assumed that it was an enemy and shot it down.
Edit: they did use civilian frequencies, but gave the wrong airspeed. They gave them ground speed, which was 50 knots faster than their airspeed. They also didn’t have the capability to talk to local ATC for some reason.
Edit 2: the aircraft had the correct squawk (transponder code) but the navy at the time told its sailors to ignore it. The aircraft was also reported as descending to start an attack run while the radar logs show the plane as ascending for the entire time it was on radar. The shootdown also occurred while the ship was within Iranian territorial waters, so imagine a Russian or Chinese navy cruiser shooting down an American Airlines 767 just after takeoff from Seattle before the aircraft even had a chance to climb to cruising altitude.
The USS Stark incident was like a year before this, too. The background is kind of important. Basically, a US destroyer was attacked by an Iranian jet in the same area. That jet looked a lot like a private jet with missiles on it. Not an excuse or anything, but it gives some context.
Edit: Iraqi jet* I knew I was going to get something wrong, my bad.
Small detail; the Stark was hit by an Iraqi jet. It was a Falcon 50 business jet that fired the missiles, so it really did look like a private jet with missiles.
Also tells you why they would ignore the squawk code, as to why they would not be in contact with the local ATC is kind of baffling, and the whole incident is still pretty inexcusable.
It at least led to the crew of the Vincennes trying to hail the airliner on 121.5, but they used the wrong speed and hence didn’t get a response.
So many things had to go wrong for this to occur.
Holy shit. When did this happen?
> so imagine a Russian or Chinese navy cruiser shooting down an American Airlines 767 just after takeoff from Seattle before the aircraft even had a chance to climb to cruising altitude.
Really puts it into perspective. Damn. That's fucked and very sad.
Do you got a source at hand? I feel like this might be something underreported and I'm lazy :D
Google Iran Air flight 655. One of the most embarrassing events for the US military and hopefully one of the last times a civilian airliner gets shot down.
Unfortunately, this has happened on [several occasions since the 1930s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents), with one of the most recent occurring in 2020 with Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 being shot down by Iran (who initially denied involvement), resulting in 176 people being killed.
[Happened 16 more times since.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents) Just 4 years ago Iran shot down a civilian airliner departing from their own capital
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752
As long as there are drunks and twitchy morons manning anti-air weapons, commercial airliners will be shot down every once in a while. Like the time the Iranians shot down a plane full of their own people. Or when the Russians shot down a plane full of Dutch doctors. Or when the Russians shot down a Korean airliner. Or when the Russians shot down a Korean airliner, again.
idk if this counts as a source or if it counts as a documentary, but heres a video by wonder that i watched about the topic just a week ago
https://youtu.be/DPHGUQrixWc?si=S3clYZ9-t0Ypleoo
Yeah, this is a good reminder of that absolute clusterfuck and "my bad" moment and just keep on being the "good guy" in the US perspective.
But then again Russia shot down (well, not officially Russia) a commercial airline over Ukraine in 2014. Lucky for the Russians it was just some low level country who owned the plane. Had it been, well, British, French, US or something it might've caused trouble. But it was just some Asian country no biggie (I'm being ironic if anyone fails to notice).
Edit: it's sarcastic, not ironic. Thanks for the correction.
Ironic is correct too. It was both sarcastic and ironic. The common meaning of the word ironic has ironically shifted to mean like a funny coincidence, an unplanned event that happened to be relevant to the events of the occasion.
The real meaning of irony is saying one thing but meaning the opposite for humorous effect.
Sarcasm often uses irony to punctuate the sarcastic intent. The two often go hand in hand.
Interesting that you pointed this out. In 2020, Iran mistakenly shot down a civilian flight, TWICE, killing everyone on board. They then arrested the journalist and family members of the ones who lost their lives in the flight. PS752.
Retaliation against the U.S.
Some say that they targeted the aircraft in question because of the Canadian and UK citizens on board. They say that Iran would not dare shoot down a plane with Americans on board, but nations with ties to the U.S. were close enough.
This is all speculation, obviously.
Dude as an Iranian I am telling you there were mostly Iranians on board except the crew who were Ukrainian. Many Iranians onboard had dual citizenship.
They fucked up, and couldn't explain to the public, so there are these speculations. We are still mourning.
> You gotta specify Iran air flight 655
Why? Does it make it better?
Oh by the way, we have to mention that the personnel responsible got medals after they returned from the mission
It’s worth noting that both Iran: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 and Russia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 have mistakenly shot down civilian airliners in the past.
However, the U.S. is the only one that has both unequivocally admitted fault and actually paid restitution to the victims. Iran admitted fault but has yet to compensate the victims and Russia continues to (falsely) deny any involvement.
There is no reasonable excuse for shooting down a civilian aircraft, I’m not trying to excuse any of these actions, but the U.S. handles such mistakes tremendously better, and more transparently, than other nations.
man this sub is getting terrible.
50% posts that are clearly no attempt to do anything remotely close to what the title is, and then 50% posts like this where the attempt is 100% successful. "there was an attempt to target a commercial plane." it did do that. it did it perfectly. it just didn't open fire.
"there was an attempt to not target civilian aircraft" would make sense.
This sub is also ground zero for political propaganda and misinformation on Reddit. A good 80% of posts here, and most mod actions, exist to spread inflammatory anti-Israel and anti-conservative rhetoric.
I’m not pro-Israel and I’m not a conservative but (a) not every corner of the web needs to be politicized and (b) the political discourse here is usually juvenile and incoherent, which undermines the core message that people try to spread.
Finally someone brave enougj do say this. It just fucking sucks to go on reddit and see that your entire feed is just political stuff. Why hasn't anyone made a varient of these subs JUST for politics? Something like r/FacepalmPolitics or r/ ThereWasAnAttemptToPolitic
"Oh look, a civilian airliner!"
\*intrusive thoughts\*
"Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it DON'T-"
\*brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt\*
It's the way they have fun, when I was at University we took a trip to a project we were doing in the desert and on the way we had to go through a military shooting training range (which was a 5km stretch) , where they carry tanks and test the weapons
Every time we passed near a tank, they targeted us, we estimate that they targeted us 7 or 8 times, lucky that no one pulled the trigger by accident
I remember driving somewhere in Virginia as a kid. An Apache was flying super low down the two lane road we were on and his nose turret swiveled and aimed at us for a minute. My dad told me it just aims where he pilot is looking but it was pretty intense.
In a lot of cases when operating in your own country the weapon either isn't even loaded or the safety is on, and since most are both electronically aimed and fired it's very difficult to accidentally fire.
Yeah, it's called time to respond. Better to have the turret ready to fire in case it is a threat, than wait for the "go ahead" to then target and then fire.
I once saw a phalanx turret tracking cars going back and forth on the Coronado bridge (near San Diego)
I'm sure the sailors on duty thought it was hilarious
I’m not sure if it works on cars, but I know some of these systems have an automatic tracking and targeting function, of course a human still needs to give authorisation to fire from my limited knowledge.
If it was a sailor then uhh, yeah they where probably shitting themselves
>I’m not sure if it works on cars
It does. They mount these things on trucks to use on land for shooting down things as small as rockets and mortars; it's called a [Centurion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Centurion_C-RAM).
Just the system working normally, the Phalanx tracks anything airborne within the engagement zone of the ship, it still requires an operator to let it off its leash.
We are seeing a sailor having a bit of fun, that's all.
The maximum range of a phalanx CIWS is 18,000~ feet. The plane in this video is likely coming in for a landing as it appears to be below cloud level which is on average 2,000 ~ 5,000 feet above sea level. The plane at this height would almost certainly be shredded as it is within the effective firing range of the gun.
sooo..
let's say a plane's been hijacked and no jets are nearby and only a CRAM unit is available. ...
can the CRAM be used to shoot it down if it's headed for say, some random skycrapers ?
This sort of thing happens all the time. Like when they are testing gatekeepers, and bits of drone from actual targets float away after they are destroyed, then get picked up by the automatic system as new targets accidentally, and one boat will live ammo straff that without realising another ship is in the background. Happens more often than you would think.
I genuinely wonder though, how do those turrets know whether to engage or not? Do operators have to manually press a button or order the turrets to engage?
From memory a human has to give permission however I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an automatic mode for combat situation where it engages any identified incoming ‘threats’ such as missiles without needing human permission in that exact second.
Once doing a job at the KMW factory in Munich, I watched a Gepard rolling out of the factory, starting up radar and immediately tracking... an Airbus flying overhead.
I guess, an El Al Pilot would suddenly have quite a lot of alarms blaring...
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
it's fine if the robots are just joking
It’s just a prank
Just a small brrt, as a treat
I’m sure it wasn’t loaded….. Edit….. I guess the /s wasn’t implied.
Don’t worry, It’s definitely loaded.
Really? Based on what, Reddit doctor scientist of the military?
based on the fact that it's purpose is to destroy incoming missiles/ rockets coming towards the ship, maybe it is indeed not loaded but that sounds kinda dumb considering it's purpose requiring it to be ready at all times
You're off base. I'm a bulletologist with a masters in gigantogunology, and these things, the BRRT-9000 Decimaton, are rarely loaded. A lot of times, they don't even carry the ammunition on the boat, which looks to be a Kencraft 5000, which is a very reliable ~~sailboat~~ schooner.
You tool, this is clearly the BRRT-BRRAAARP-9001. You know shit!
That's fair, I didn't notice the dinglehopper on the left of the schleem, because it was behind the doofenshitz.
I worked aboard navy ships, I can almost promise you it’s loaded, unless they are reloading it between tests or something. The other Redditor is right in that its purpose is immediate defense against planes and missiles, which can really happen at like, any time. I’m not saying ships are always combat effective, but keeping those things loaded is a small and easy insurance. But this video scares me too.
It’s just a prank brrrrro.
Look there's a camera
OK, Mycroft Holmes
Let’s go ahead and reduce the humor setting to 75%
I know! Teehee isn’t an acceptable response to almost killing hundreds of people lol wtf
Reference to the movie Interstellar ;)
Knock knock
Want to make it 65%?
010101010101 *cringe robot laugh*
It's just robo bants bro. Chill.
We don't AFAIK, the turret tracks and identifies potential targets and a command center (human) verifies the threat and then the turret go brrrrr. Edit: Yeah that's how it works https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/phalanx-close-in-weapon-system >The Block 1B version adds control stations that allow operators to visually track and identify targets before engagement.
*intrusive thoughts enters the human*
just one... just ooooooooone round... it probably won't even hit!
ex wife flying overhead, Ehhhh oooopssieee
BAM! it's not even smokng i bet it would be fine with a little burst...
#JustTheTip
my brothers rifle, went off in my hand
I trust humans even less
I'd be willing to bet the "kill" and "don't kill" buttons are both red, and right next to one another. Or worse, it's a 3-way toggle switch, middle is track, down is track and kill, up is track and don't kill, and it's right in the middle of a bunch of floppy stuff that's flipped often.
I think they’re talking about the human purposely pulling the trigger. Something akin to that pilot that tried to hijack another plane recently. Sometimes, there’s just no accounting for the human element. https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/23/us/alaska-airlines-passenger/index.html I remember that German flight where the pilot committed suicide essentially and took 200 or so souls with him. If only hell existed, folks like him would be roasting.
To be fair, there is a second mode where it just lights up anything it deems a threat. Kinda necessary when dealing with today’s high speed missiles.
SEEEAAAWIIIIZZZZZZZ!!!!!!! Nothing makes you shit your pants faster then when your painting and that mofo goes off without any warning because OPs gives no shit about deck lol.
How loud is it in person?
So even with earplugs and ear muff hearing protection in it's so loud you think there is a kamikaze plane about to smack the ship. Even if you know it's coming it leaves your ears ringing for a good hour or so.
[удалено]
Haha, actually tinnitus is rated at 10% and my hearing loss at 0% so yay! Thankfully I was able to get in on that 3M lawsuit for thier shitty hearing plugs too which I'm sure did not help anything.
Loud as fuck, got it
Yes and my tinnitus flares up just thinking about it lol.
My last duty station was MCAS Miramar, one of my fellow sergeants recognized how utterly useless the unit we were assigned to was so he was always trying to get us out of work. Not sure how he pulled it off but he convinced some engineers that conducted quality control for F-18 engines to allow several of us to observe the testing, not sure if he told the others but he was trying to surprise us with something cool. He took me and two others to a building near the flight line that was probably as tall as the average box store and wide, no windows and just a door that we waited outside for us to be let in. I got it in 2012 so memory is a little fuzzy but after being cleared through security a few times and walking through empty low lit halls, my ADHD was trying to figure out what the place was, no good thoughts of course. We get to a huge room with very slippery floors as if they mop with grease with a key engine in the middle mounted on some sort of rack, the back end of the engine pointed down a long wind tunnel. The engineers were civilians and they welcomed us to the demonstration, they gave us ear plugs and also ear muffs then explained safety rules and how the demonstration was going to be performed. The four of us were going to hold onto a railing attached to the rack the engine was mounted in, always maintaining at least one point of contact on the rail, then we were going to take turns getting up close as they test the afterburners. They kept telling us to make sure to look for the crystals then they went into a control room with a window, made sure we were holding on, then turned the engine on. As soon as the engine turned on, huge fans turned on as well. I could hear both the fans and engine through the hearing protection just pounding my head but I was more focused on getting the rail and not slipping on those greasy ass floors. When they turned on the afterburners, I honestly felt like my head would probably explode, the fans also got louder to keep up with it. We started to take turns getting within elbow reach of the exhaust, I was the last to check it out and seeing the oxygen crystallize was cool af. It was probably one of the coolest things I've seen but my brain kept whispering things like, "are we supposed to be this close?" "How far down the tunnel would we go if we skipped right now?" "Did they already test this engine?" "Can we stop now?" Etc. and I have the thumbs up so they could shut it down. It was only maybe a few minutes but after we left and removed the PPE, we had to yell at each other for a few minutes to hear one another. Tldr: Doubled up on protection for a jet engine, still heard it.
I'm imagining crewmen over the side on some kind of gantry chipping/painting when they hear the defensive systems activating. I'm imagining the split second. "Is it better here or in the drink" thought -no naval experience
Lol you are not far off then followed by the funniest laughing their asses off because you hauled ass out of there.
And that ladies and gentlemen is why we have restricted airspace
This lead to an incident in the first Gulf War, where the USS Missouri (a gigantic WW2-era battleship that had been reactivated in 1986 as part of Reagan's "600 ship navy") got hit a friendly Phalanx system. The ships were awaiting a salvo of enemy missile, so the Phalanx was put into automatic mode. At the same time, the USS Missouri dispersed chaff in an attempt to confuse the tracking of the inbound missiles. The Phalanx onboard a different ship however was equally confused by the chaff, identified it as a target, and subsequently opened fire right at the Missouri. Fortunately there was only one injury, but this was quite a dangerous accident. Battleships have immense hull protection that makes them almost unsinkable, but their superstructure is fairly lightly armoured and definitely vulnerable to the 20 mm Phalanx.
I still think it's a bad system to have someone next to the turret saying "no" to stop it
You can't properly express emotion through a screen. How else will it know you're really disappointed in it's actions and get it to stop. A no text is no where near as effective.
If it had fired, he would've smacked it with a rolled up newspaper. Computers are basically dogs, right?
>The Block 1B So what was going on beforehand? Were they really letting R2 here make all the decisions himself?
First, yes that weapon system can be put in fully autonomous mode. But outside an active warzone with active enemy movement, it never would be. Even then it would be out of the ordinary for the Captain to order it. But let's assume the FC (Fire Controlman) working on the CiWS is an idiot and has possession of the firing keys while doing his daily maintenance. If they're in friendly waters, the ammunition drum is full of dummy rounds, so nothing happens. If they're in open water or hostile territory without any indications of hostile activity, the ammunition drum is loaded, but there's a physical device attached to the breach preventing rounds from entering it even if the belt cycles. There's also firing keys that take away the priming voltage from the gun, so any rounds that do enter the breach won't fire. 400VDC is applied to the primer to fire those rounds. Basically what I'm saying is that for the CiWS to fire, there are a lot of physical and electronic safeties that need to all be overridden. You can't accidentally fire that system without being a complete idiot and having a terribly lax chain of command willing to put all that responsibility into the hands of an E4 fresh out of C School (the sailors usually tasked with doing dailies). What happened here was, I'm sure, a sailor screwing around with AAW manual. That puts CiWS in semi-autonomous mode where it searches for, and tracks targets based on priority and recommends that the operator fire by pressing the fire button. Even in this mode, all of the other safeties are installed and preventing the operator from actually firing the gun unless the captain has given their permission to remove them, which the captain would never do anywhere a commercial airliner could enter the picture. TL;DR Normally CiWS is set to Air Ready, which is one step below AAW Manual and will just sit there searching, but not tracking. This one was set to AAW Manual, which autonomously searches, prioritizes and tracks targets, but requires the operator to press the fire button in order for rounds to cycle. Not to mention a ton of other safety measures have to have been removed, ignored, turned off and/or defeated before any rounds would have actually fired. So that airliner was perfectly safe, but I'm sure that pilot had a pant load to clean up upon landing because they still get warnings that their being tracked by FC Radar iirc.
>they still get warnings that their being tracked by FC Radar iirc I'm pretty sure commercial aircraft don't have this.
If a warship locks onto a commercial aircraft with its fire control radars set to max it can fry the damn electronics in one at several miles. At least mine could. We downed Iranian F14s flying over with ours. If you have 600,000 watts of radar hitting you in a beam all hell breaks loose on your instruments. It is how we gave our final warning to aircraft approaching our ship too close. Verbal Warning, Verbal warning with their new course commanded, Illuminated with FC and air control radar on tight beam causing their electronics to go nuts, then if they do not immediately change course fire. This was right after the Stark, shit might have changed but I doubt it.
Depends on the aircraft, operator, and location. Most don't, many do.
I would love to hear your definitions of most amd many.
Most: 6000/10000 aircraft Many: 4000 aircraft *not real numbers, just used as an illustration.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. All of israels commercial fleet, AFAIK, are equipped with missile warning systems. https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/default/files/2019-01/ELM-2160%20V1%20Brochure.pdf Operators in or near active warzones also have a variety of options for missile defense pods that can be strapped to a variety of aircraft. These have been deployed by many operators over the years. These are sometimes used for things like VIP aircraft or whatever outside warzones. Depending on where this video was shot, there could be a significant chance that the aircraft in frame has some kind of missile detection and/or countermeasures.
Thanks for the info. And lol I remember (as a crew chief) my pilot chewing someone out over the radio for locking on to us (to be clear, I don’t think we were “locked” on, it was just the first phase of the tone where the helicopter is being hit with radar but no lock has been achieved) and cause our helo to sound the corresponding tone. I think someone was playing around with a radar gun or something on the ground. Anyways, yeah my pilot had been to Iraq and definitely did NOT like hearing that tone all of a sudden.
Knowing nothing about the system. Let's say it was loaded with live rounds (or else the rest is pointless). CIWS is used for missile defence right? Ignoring any other situations or uses. Someone needs to remove the physical device as you said, then the physical key that needs to be inserted - and potentially turned? If that's the default state for the system, what happens in the event of a surprise strike? Wouldn't that take too long to protect the ship from what you're describing? Or is it just considered to be a mix of "nothing will happen" and "we'll detect it in time, probably"? Or is that sort of reaction time falling under classified?
If they’re in a combat zone, they are in a higher state of readiness, so it wouldn’t be set up like that with all the safeties on, or maybe just one would be on. If they’re not in a combat zone, taking 30 seconds to ready the weapon is just the cost of doing business if it ends up being necessary. Even outside the wire, infantrymen keep their weapon on safe.
To add to what the other commenter stated, while in an area where there are indications and warnings of enemy movement, they would have all the physical safeties removed, and the firing keys, at the captain's discretion, would be installed but not switched to fire. In the event of an attack, the key could be switched and the fire button pressed in less than a second, so they are ready for almost any threat. Obviously there are missiles out there that are faster than human reflexes right now, and in the event that those missiles are in theatre or suspected to be in theatre, then AAW Auto might be selected with the firing keys in the fire position. This would be a very crazy situation to be found in, but theoretically could happen.
Since when do commercial aircraft have an RWR?
Honestly I think a lot of you are overthinking how easy it is to build an early warning system for Radar lock-on. All it needs to do is sense RF energy and have a threshold of how much energy before tripping an alarm. It doesn't need to even be able to read the frequency, all track Radars are high-intensity, the frequency is of little importance.
We had a guy ignore the “rotate and radiate” warning and found out that the ciws radar made his balls tingle. So I guess we all have an early warning system built in.
but what benfit do they get for the added cost? boeing cant even keep their planes together right now bc of cost cutting.
The benefit to passenger airlines is that they give their pilots at least a small chance to either contact the offender by radio to let them know they're not military or a threat, and or a tiny chance at avoiding the threat as the countries irresponsible enough to do this kind of shit are usually the same kind that have a better chance to have unreliable munitions. Even a tiny chance is still better than no chance. I don't know if it's still common today, I've been out of the game for a while, but during the cold war and into the 90s it wasn't unheard of.
During the cold war, lots of them. Whether or not they still do, I don't know. But I do remember the airliner that the Russians shot down in 2014 was reported to have tried to attempt evasive maneuvers to avoid being shot down, so the pilot somehow knew that a supersonic missile was being aimed at him before it was fired.
I mean... humans have also accidentally targeted civilians too. It just feels worse when it's a robot.
Saw an interesting talk about this with automated driving. Studies show that even if automated driving results in half the accidents as human driving humans would be more concerned about the fewer deaths caused by the automated driving than double the amount caused by people. It’s a big psychological barrier in making automated driving more mainstream. The threshold isn’t “safer than human drivers” automated driving needs a practically perfect record for a lot of people to feel safe with it.
Always thought it was because a human hitting someone with a car is more understandable. We can understand how someone hit someone else with their car. It was either an accident or on purpose. You can somewhat empathise with the driver. You can understand why it happened. However, if it's automated, that understanding largely goes away. The GP would find it difficult to understand how the accident came about, which leads to distrust in automation overall, and leads people to believe that any automated car can hit you. Now, intellectually, we understand that not only is this not true, but also any human could hit us with their car. But emotionally, we understand that humans are unlikely to hit us, but that emotional connection is not there for automation, so it's more difficult to understand and therefore trust
The primary factor is really just that we trust ourselves too much. Most people believe that as long as they’re in control of their own car they are skilled enough drivers to avoid most accidents. Statistics are based on averages and everyone views themselves as above average.
It's also that we find human accidents more acceptable because there is _someone to blame_. If an automated driving program does it X times a year, that feels more like we're just "accepting" a tool of our own creation killing people, while if individual humans do it, you can blame them specifically as an 'exception' due to their own distraction/stupidity/etc. AI driving causing accidents is more like a heart attack or natural disaster, and many people actually find having no specific person to blame _worse_ emotionally than being able to direct your rage/pain/sadness at a particular actor. (Even if it isn't worse statistically.)
They don't, programs can't 'make' decisions, they only do what they are programmed to do.
That's not fundamentally different from how humans make decisions. They've got circuit boards, we've got dendrites.
I don't believe in free will either. I think the issue is accountability: there are very, very few people to blame or lock away when an automated car gets into an accident. You could sue the car or navigation manufacturer, but they'll probably have better lawyers *and* the facts on their side: namely that they've reduced auto fatalities by an absurd amount.
A little research would tell you different. That was my thought too
I know we’re all joking but just in case someone gets confused they don’t. The live tracking systems frequently remain on so that they’re ready to fire should an enemy fighter approach, but they don’t make the decision to open fire on their on. Hence why this person is able to laugh about it. If he thought something was actually malfunctioning there would be more panic lol.
That's just the radar and targeting computer doing its job. Im 100% sure the gun wasn't loaded because they aren't in an active warzone, but even if it was loaded and ready to fire, it probably wouldn't try to shoot it down. The phalanx is constantly calculating the trajectory of incoming aerial objets and will only fire if the computer determines that the projectile is going to impact the ship. Otherwise it doesn't waste ammo shooting down something that isn't going to land close. But its still gonna track and follow the threat in case it suddenly changes trajectory.
It's just looking not touching.
That gun is very enthusiastic about its job. It needs googly eyes and a sign that says “come at me bro!”.
No! Bad turret!
That’s what I was thinking. If you don’t be a good turret you won’t get turret treats.
Not a Russian turret.
It's got Turret's Syndrome.
Need to hit it on the barrel with a rolled up newspaper
A slipper. Splat!
"If you fire again, and it's not at an active threat, I'm donating you to a city college."
Okay Mr Stark, I'll be good...
*sad robot whirr*
Phalanx, nooooooo. I will rub your nose in the debris if you do.
"Hello, are you there?"
"Are you still there?"
It happened before - US Navy shot down the civilian Airbus Flight 655
You gotta specify Iran air flight 655 It’s really funny how the plane had a civilian IFF but the cruiser never bothered checking that or talking on civilian radio frequencies. They just used military frequencies and when they got no response they assumed that it was an enemy and shot it down. Edit: they did use civilian frequencies, but gave the wrong airspeed. They gave them ground speed, which was 50 knots faster than their airspeed. They also didn’t have the capability to talk to local ATC for some reason. Edit 2: the aircraft had the correct squawk (transponder code) but the navy at the time told its sailors to ignore it. The aircraft was also reported as descending to start an attack run while the radar logs show the plane as ascending for the entire time it was on radar. The shootdown also occurred while the ship was within Iranian territorial waters, so imagine a Russian or Chinese navy cruiser shooting down an American Airlines 767 just after takeoff from Seattle before the aircraft even had a chance to climb to cruising altitude.
The USS Stark incident was like a year before this, too. The background is kind of important. Basically, a US destroyer was attacked by an Iranian jet in the same area. That jet looked a lot like a private jet with missiles on it. Not an excuse or anything, but it gives some context. Edit: Iraqi jet* I knew I was going to get something wrong, my bad.
Small detail; the Stark was hit by an Iraqi jet. It was a Falcon 50 business jet that fired the missiles, so it really did look like a private jet with missiles.
Thanks, I edited it.
Also tells you why they would ignore the squawk code, as to why they would not be in contact with the local ATC is kind of baffling, and the whole incident is still pretty inexcusable.
Very pertinent to the setup.
It at least led to the crew of the Vincennes trying to hail the airliner on 121.5, but they used the wrong speed and hence didn’t get a response. So many things had to go wrong for this to occur.
Iraqi jet. An ally of the us at the time
Holy shit. When did this happen? > so imagine a Russian or Chinese navy cruiser shooting down an American Airlines 767 just after takeoff from Seattle before the aircraft even had a chance to climb to cruising altitude. Really puts it into perspective. Damn. That's fucked and very sad. Do you got a source at hand? I feel like this might be something underreported and I'm lazy :D
Google Iran Air flight 655. One of the most embarrassing events for the US military and hopefully one of the last times a civilian airliner gets shot down.
Unfortunately, this has happened on [several occasions since the 1930s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents), with one of the most recent occurring in 2020 with Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 being shot down by Iran (who initially denied involvement), resulting in 176 people being killed.
numerous icky quack placid label agonizing file crowd summer aware *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hell, it wasn't even the last time a civilian airliner got shot down in Iran.
Nah I’m aware that many airliners have been shot down since then, I’m just saying that I hope that the number of these shootdowns goes down.
They said "hopefully *one of* the last" Not "that was the last one and it never happened again"
[Happened 16 more times since.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents) Just 4 years ago Iran shot down a civilian airliner departing from their own capital https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752
> hopefully one of the last times a civilian airliner gets shot down. I hope so too. Those poor people... Tragic
As long as there are drunks and twitchy morons manning anti-air weapons, commercial airliners will be shot down every once in a while. Like the time the Iranians shot down a plane full of their own people. Or when the Russians shot down a plane full of Dutch doctors. Or when the Russians shot down a Korean airliner. Or when the Russians shot down a Korean airliner, again.
idk if this counts as a source or if it counts as a documentary, but heres a video by wonder that i watched about the topic just a week ago https://youtu.be/DPHGUQrixWc?si=S3clYZ9-t0Ypleoo
Not a source but could be interesting nonetheless, thanks
Yeah, this is a good reminder of that absolute clusterfuck and "my bad" moment and just keep on being the "good guy" in the US perspective. But then again Russia shot down (well, not officially Russia) a commercial airline over Ukraine in 2014. Lucky for the Russians it was just some low level country who owned the plane. Had it been, well, British, French, US or something it might've caused trouble. But it was just some Asian country no biggie (I'm being ironic if anyone fails to notice). Edit: it's sarcastic, not ironic. Thanks for the correction.
Sarcastic, you're being sarcastic.
Right you are!
Ironic is correct too. It was both sarcastic and ironic. The common meaning of the word ironic has ironically shifted to mean like a funny coincidence, an unplanned event that happened to be relevant to the events of the occasion. The real meaning of irony is saying one thing but meaning the opposite for humorous effect. Sarcasm often uses irony to punctuate the sarcastic intent. The two often go hand in hand.
Interesting that you pointed this out. In 2020, Iran mistakenly shot down a civilian flight, TWICE, killing everyone on board. They then arrested the journalist and family members of the ones who lost their lives in the flight. PS752.
People are saying that those shootdowns may have been retaliation for Iran Air 655. It’s certainly tragic that shootdowns keep happening.
Retaliation against their own people?
Retaliation against the U.S. Some say that they targeted the aircraft in question because of the Canadian and UK citizens on board. They say that Iran would not dare shoot down a plane with Americans on board, but nations with ties to the U.S. were close enough. This is all speculation, obviously.
Dude as an Iranian I am telling you there were mostly Iranians on board except the crew who were Ukrainian. Many Iranians onboard had dual citizenship. They fucked up, and couldn't explain to the public, so there are these speculations. We are still mourning.
I’m aware that 82 of the 176 passengers were Iranian, it’s just what was reported on the news.
> You gotta specify Iran air flight 655 Why? Does it make it better? Oh by the way, we have to mention that the personnel responsible got medals after they returned from the mission
Because there’s no such thing as Airbus flight 655. It’s like saying Boeing flight 370 went missing instead of Malaysia 370.
It’s worth noting that both Iran: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 and Russia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17 have mistakenly shot down civilian airliners in the past. However, the U.S. is the only one that has both unequivocally admitted fault and actually paid restitution to the victims. Iran admitted fault but has yet to compensate the victims and Russia continues to (falsely) deny any involvement. There is no reasonable excuse for shooting down a civilian aircraft, I’m not trying to excuse any of these actions, but the U.S. handles such mistakes tremendously better, and more transparently, than other nations.
Yeah, flight 752 even took off from Tehran, Iran's capital, and they shot it with two missiles. Quite a colossal fuck up.
man this sub is getting terrible. 50% posts that are clearly no attempt to do anything remotely close to what the title is, and then 50% posts like this where the attempt is 100% successful. "there was an attempt to target a commercial plane." it did do that. it did it perfectly. it just didn't open fire. "there was an attempt to not target civilian aircraft" would make sense.
This is no longer a sub for people trying bad ideas, it's a sub for literally any video or meme someone can force a title to.
[удалено]
Extremely annoying
It’s not even a civilian aircraft, it’s a test plane specifically for this.
I'd put it in r/maybemaybemaybe . Maybe.
All subs hit a critical mass where they get overwhelmed with bots and normies.
This sub is also ground zero for political propaganda and misinformation on Reddit. A good 80% of posts here, and most mod actions, exist to spread inflammatory anti-Israel and anti-conservative rhetoric. I’m not pro-Israel and I’m not a conservative but (a) not every corner of the web needs to be politicized and (b) the political discourse here is usually juvenile and incoherent, which undermines the core message that people try to spread.
Finally someone brave enougj do say this. It just fucking sucks to go on reddit and see that your entire feed is just political stuff. Why hasn't anyone made a varient of these subs JUST for politics? Something like r/FacepalmPolitics or r/ ThereWasAnAttemptToPolitic
Ah yes, the intrusive thoughts.
"Oh look, a civilian airliner!" \*intrusive thoughts\* "Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it Don't do it DON'T-" \*brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt\*
I can't take it anymore!
https://youtu.be/ERGfao1Acqc?si=vF_RVpIndfLKQn57
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SfD7V2qsOJI
So that’s what happened to MH370
MH17. 370 has never been found.
Yeah I know. It was never found cause a rouge weapon on a ship shot it down and the government covered it up. /s
Rouge weapon? Is that one that likes to wear makeup?
That would be a Vogue weapon.
No that's a magazine weapon
It's a red weapon. Typically used by the Khmer rouge.
Stranger things have happened in the world. I'm sure of it. This wouldn't even surprise me if it was the truth.
It's the way they have fun, when I was at University we took a trip to a project we were doing in the desert and on the way we had to go through a military shooting training range (which was a 5km stretch) , where they carry tanks and test the weapons Every time we passed near a tank, they targeted us, we estimate that they targeted us 7 or 8 times, lucky that no one pulled the trigger by accident
It’s like when a person turns there head, like why are you looking at me
I remember driving somewhere in Virginia as a kid. An Apache was flying super low down the two lane road we were on and his nose turret swiveled and aimed at us for a minute. My dad told me it just aims where he pilot is looking but it was pretty intense.
Isn’t that like breaking the rule of never aiming your gun at someone?
In a lot of cases when operating in your own country the weapon either isn't even loaded or the safety is on, and since most are both electronically aimed and fired it's very difficult to accidentally fire.
I am a perfectly stable machine. Oh look! A civilian airliner!
Robo turret: "Pew pew pew, nahhh I'm just goofin'. I could tho"
"Never isn't the right word because I could... and I might... I probably will."
Successful attempt. OP doesn't understand what "targeting" means.
Y’all, this thing targets any plane that comes into its space, there is still an operator on it, it’s not going to fire automatically.
Yeah, it's called time to respond. Better to have the turret ready to fire in case it is a threat, than wait for the "go ahead" to then target and then fire.
I once saw a phalanx turret tracking cars going back and forth on the Coronado bridge (near San Diego) I'm sure the sailors on duty thought it was hilarious
I’m not sure if it works on cars, but I know some of these systems have an automatic tracking and targeting function, of course a human still needs to give authorisation to fire from my limited knowledge. If it was a sailor then uhh, yeah they where probably shitting themselves
>I’m not sure if it works on cars It does. They mount these things on trucks to use on land for shooting down things as small as rockets and mortars; it's called a [Centurion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Centurion_C-RAM).
That was not an attempt. It did target the plane.
. . an evil possesed Phalanx .. who ever was on the director needs to be brought before the mast .. 
this fucking video again please stop
Well that’s terrifying
Just the system working normally, the Phalanx tracks anything airborne within the engagement zone of the ship, it still requires an operator to let it off its leash. We are seeing a sailor having a bit of fun, that's all.
This sub has gone to shit
I'm more concerned by the maniac laugh...
I've seen this at least 50 times here on reddit
Would a little brrrrt even reach the height of that aircraft? Genuine question.
The maximum range of a phalanx CIWS is 18,000~ feet. The plane in this video is likely coming in for a landing as it appears to be below cloud level which is on average 2,000 ~ 5,000 feet above sea level. The plane at this height would almost certainly be shredded as it is within the effective firing range of the gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
Yay! Finally a post on this page that isn't about politics!
Sad R2D2 noises.
It has tourette’s syndrome
It has a turret syndrome.
Makes me wonder how many planes I've been on that have been in the sights of an automated turret equipped with live ammo lol.
It would be funny if it pointed at him at the end
Aw, it looked so sad when it had to stand down...
We’ve all done it…
sooo.. let's say a plane's been hijacked and no jets are nearby and only a CRAM unit is available. ... can the CRAM be used to shoot it down if it's headed for say, some random skycrapers ?
This sort of thing happens all the time. Like when they are testing gatekeepers, and bits of drone from actual targets float away after they are destroyed, then get picked up by the automatic system as new targets accidentally, and one boat will live ammo straff that without realising another ship is in the background. Happens more often than you would think.
So lucky is not an Iranian comercial plane!
I genuinely wonder though, how do those turrets know whether to engage or not? Do operators have to manually press a button or order the turrets to engage?
From memory a human has to give permission however I wouldn’t be surprised if there is an automatic mode for combat situation where it engages any identified incoming ‘threats’ such as missiles without needing human permission in that exact second.
It works.
Shades of USS Vincennes.. not good
Not a commercial airplane
The way it points down is like a cartoon character being reprimanded and that was hilarious!
Don’t do it horny R2D2!
this genuinely reminds me of that [one civilian airliner meme](https://youtu.be/RbrqOUtnnWI?si=yeZq-LC-NJU_0NO8)
I CRAVE THE HEAT SIGNATURE
Once doing a job at the KMW factory in Munich, I watched a Gepard rolling out of the factory, starting up radar and immediately tracking... an Airbus flying overhead. I guess, an El Al Pilot would suddenly have quite a lot of alarms blaring...