The Marine Corps is preparing for the transition to full-rate production of the Marine Air Defense Integrated System Remote Weapon Station, according to a July 10 press release from manufacturer Kongsberg.
The Marine Air Defense Integrated System Remote Weapon Station, otherwise known as MADIS RWS, is a critical system in the Marine Corps Ground-Based Air Defense portfolio, which provides protection from drones with increased lethality against evolving threats.
Since this is a Marine system, built to be exposed to salt air and sea spray, there is no reason it could not also be a naval mount.
Currently no Coast Guard ships seem to have an effective hard kill system to use against Unmanned Air Systems.
The Marines seem to think they have an effective system.
It looks like a version of the MADIS system could be a very useful addition to some Coast Guard Cutters. The Navy might even want a few, including perhaps for the protection of Military Sealift Command Ships.
The war in Ukraine is showing us how useful and potentially dangerous even small Unmanned Surface and Air systems can be. The threat is not limited to Ukraine or Southwest Asia.
The MADIS system and its Remote Weapon Station is light enough to be used on virtually anything the Coast Guard calls a cutter. In addition to defense against UAS, this system could provide basic air defense against other potential threats and defense against swarming small craft.
The Webber Class:
We have already seen the sensors used in the MADIS system on the Webber class WPCs in PATFORSWA, but even those cutters don’t have an effective, installed hard kill system.
The addition of the MADIS remote weapon station to PATFORSWA FRCs would not only allow the cutters to engage UAS but would also provide them with protection against various air threats.
While perhaps less urgent, mounting the system on all Webber class would allow them to offer this protection to other potential targets.
Offshore Patrol Cutter port quarter
The Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC):
There are two troubling issues with the OPC with regard to their armament.
- Aside from the .50 calibers, on most bearings, there is only one weapon that can bear on a target. The lack of redundancy is a serious weakness.
- Protection against even the most basic air threats, including UAS, is weak at best.
I have always been a bit concerned that the arc of fire for the single 25mm Mk38 Mod3 gun is severely limited. It’s mounted on top of the hangar, but what appear to be satcom antennas on either side may limit the firing arc to less than 180 degrees.
Replacing the Mk38 mount, the two .50 caliber in remote weapon stations, and the crew served .50 caliber guns with three properly sited MADIS style remote weapon stations (RWS), would ensure redundant coverage of 360 degrees, provide a more robust air defense (including against cruise missiles), and reduce the number of different weapon systems that need to be maintained.
The National Security Cutters (NSC):
The NSCs are nominally better armed than the OPCs because they have a 20mm Phalanx rather than a 25 Mk38. They would certainly be better off if a pair of the MADIS RWS replaced the .50 caliber crew served weapons. The additional visual sensors might also be useful. It might even be preferable to replace the Phalanx with a third RWS.
Polar Security Cutter and Others:
The remote weapon system does not necessarily require the air search radar system. This system is light and compact enough to arm virtually any cutter from patrol boats to icebreakers including buoy tenders that do occasionally do law enforcement and would benefit from the electro-optics that are part of the Remote Weapon Station.
Other Considerations:
Other Remote Weapon Station combinations might be preferable. I would like to see a more powerful gun than the M230 combined with Hellfire or APKWS in addition to Stinger, but this is in the Navy’s system now and provides a unique combination of capabilities. Training and maintenance course should become available.
The gun in the remote weapon system, the XM914E1 30mm that fires the 30x113mm does have a lower muzzle velocity (805 m/s (2,641 ft/s)) than the 25mm M242 (1,100 m/s (3,600 ft/s)) but the 30mm has a higher rate and airburst ammunition not currently available for US 25mm guns. The 25mm might be a better anti-surface weapon but not by much and the air burst ammunition and particularly the Stinger make me strongly favor the MADIS system.
From Back Left: 40mm grenade casing, 30x173mm (A-10/M44), 30x113mm (M230), 25x137mm (M242/Mk38 gun mount), 20x103mm (Phalanx), 50 BMG
300Blackout (typical rifle round), 9mmx19 (typical pistol round)
The air search radars used with the MADIS system would provide redundancy for air search and helicopter approach control. It could also be used to support UAS operations. Reportedly the radar has a range of up to 30km and an instrumented range of 50km at altitudes from 30ft to 30,000 feet.
Stinger may be an old system, but it has a proven capability. It is likely to be replaced with a new and even better system in the near future.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
I have labored over this 30mm conundrum quite a bit. I’d rather we get the sensor side of MADIS synced up with mk 38 mod IV and keep 1 size of 30mm. Plus, dual feed. Tough to beat the smaller gun’s rate of fire though.
Mk.38 Mod IV’s 30mm Bushmaster is a lot more powerful than the M230LF, with the ability to go to 40mm Bushmaster on the same mount. The offboard sensors used with it, like the RN uses, are a better option than Onboard sensors. No need to worry about recoil mitigation or flash when used at night. Also easier to de-escalate (no need to turn a gun barrel on a target initially just the EO/IR turret discretely.
MSI who make the mount also have an additional missile module called Seahawk Sigma that mounts on the side. It can carry Starstreak and the LMM missile, but could easily be adapted to Stinger. Realistically though LMM would be the ideal weapon for the USCG.
The Corps need a large direct fire weapon system. The tanks may have gone, but they need something: B1 Centauro or Type 16?
@X, B1 Centauro or Type 16? not familiar with these.
@X, I presume those are 105mm guns. US Army is just starting to field a new vehicle with the 105 mm, the M-10 “Mobile Protected Firepower,” (e.g. light tank) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_Booker
There is also a version of the Stryker with a 105. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System
Centauro II really seems to be a polished product even having a trophy-like protection system. Also an Iveco product same as ACV although the engine isn’t the same. Its the right weight and available with a 120mm.
It is what the USMC needs. I hope the reforms are stopped now there is a new Commandant General.
I’ve long complained about the positioning of the Mk38 on the OPC with it’s clearly limited arc of fire. I simply do not understand why there are as many satcom antennas on the OPC or why they are positioned where they are. But in today’s environment, I’d much rather have SeaRAM than a Mk38 in that position.
Regarding the MADIS system, I would agree that on the OPC, replacing the .50cal RWS with MADIS makes sense.
Completely agree on your other points in terms of mounting on FRCs and other classes, except that for the PSC I also would add a SeaRAM launcher, as it’s a purely defensive weapon. Can’t be too careful these days.
Sea RAM is highly desirable on any large warship or auxiliary.
I view this Remote Weapon Station as more of a replacement for the .50 calibers we put of ships. They are just not very useful.
There was an article that the USN is sunsetting the naval CROWS and Kongsberg’s site no longer has a sell sheet attached to the link for the mount. I think it might be time to think the 30mm RS6 mount XM914 can replace many of the places we see an M2 in use today.
Stryker with 105mm isn’t a caverly vehicle. It can only be fired when the vehicle is stationary.
@X, from what I understand, Stryker with 105 has not been very successful. Production was limited.
Too much gun on a vehicle not designed for it. Best if you watch a video.
I did some systems analysis on Stryker vehicles when I worked for MITRE about 20 years ago. In tests then the recoil caused enough movement that the guns would not stay registered between shots. One of the other engineers, a retired Armored LtCol, said it would be useless in any fight against tanks. I also remember that the bottom of the hull was sheet aluminum and that, if you could shoot between the tires, an AK-47 round would penetrate it. I don’t know what (if any) changes have been made, so my recollection may have been overtaken by events. (I was working on a Stryker equipped with non-lethal weapons for crowd-control, etc. It seemed well-suited for that.)
Considering that the US Navy retired the Mark 50 Sea Protector, the need for a RWS with a much larger caliber becomes even more important. And the 7.62mm COAX can handle anything faster and smaller.
I don’t know if the USCG will continue use of the Mark 50.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023/04/u-s-navy-decommissions-mark-50-sea-protector-remote-weapons-station/
I asked if the US Navy’s upcoming LAW/LSM will use the MADIS or MOOG turret and the Marine general said that the weapons fit on the LAW is to be determined. The LAW will just be armed with a Mark 38 Mod 3 25mm cannon. The LAW needs some form of guided missiles…ATGMs, TOW, Stinger SHORADS, APKWS, etc. for short-range anti-tank and air defense. It makes little sense to not have MOOG or MADIS on the LAW.
Now some RWS are even incorporating small C-UAS radar panels for better targeting, tracking, and accuracy.
https://www.echodyne.com/applications/defense/counter-uas-radar/
There is an article today in Proceedings calling for the upgunning of Coast Guard Cutters.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/july/upgun-cutters-meet-todays-naval-threats
There are many possible ways to upgun the Cutters but the will and budget have to be there.
Congress has signaled willingness to spend on enhancing the Coast Guard’s capabilities but the will has to be there on the Coast Guard’s side.
I just don’t think it’s there at present.
One of many such articles.
I just hope that if they implement this that they look at everything wrong with the MK38 Mod II and fix it. We had six at MFPU Kings Bay and all of them were lemons. I have a well-earned, visceral, hatred for that gun system. Everything from the computers, to the chairs we had to sit in, to the gun mounts themselves were terrible.
– The EOS (electro-optical sight) would wander around until it found the brightest object (usually the sun) and stare at it until the lenses melted the internal components.
– The laser ranger finder routinely over heated and shut down or failed entirely.
– The EOS was a single unit which meant if an internal sub system broke (or melted), the entire module had to be swapped out with a crane instead of just changing the broken part. The contractor would not ship up a new one until they had the damaged one on their bench.
– The magazines on either side of the gun didn’t hold two cans worth of linked ammunition, so the GMs always had partial belts of ammo laying around that had to be accounted for and tracked between gun exercises. Loading and downloading the weapon meant wear and tear on the ammo belts due to being linked and delinked over and over.
– A lot of the metal components that saw wear were exposed to sea spray which caused corrosion, jams, and early failures.
– The magazines weren’t sealed against sea water intrusion which led to the ammo links getting rusty and breaking or jamming in the feed chutes.
– Reloading was a labor intensive and time-consuming process. You can’t just slap another belt on the feed ramp like an M2 or 240. It takes two people to do it effectively or with any kind of speed.
– If your load team got in a hurry and loaded the magazine wrong it usually meant a full tear-down of the feeder mechanism, a half day’s work at best. One side required a leading empty link while the other required a leading cartridge.
– There wasn’t a 360-degree rotating power/data connection in the base of the mount. The gun could rotate until it wrapped its control cable around itself. After a few turns it eventually ripped the entire cable out of the back of the control console at the gunner’s station; there wasn’t a quick disconnect or break away link anywhere in the cable either. There was a manual block on the mount that prevented 360 rotation, but it could easily be forgotten in pre-load checks.
I’m sure there were other issues I’ve since blocked out but the ones I’ve listed are damning enough. The guns and mounts were maintenance nightmares from day one. The contracted engineers we had visit for troubleshooting couldn’t be bothered to listen to the complaints of the end users, namely the gun crews and patrol commanders.
I was told by a shipmate things had improved there since I left but I’ve yet to find anyone who was really pleased with that gun.
I’ve been following some of the proposals to up-gun Cutters, but I think before doing anything, the Coast Guard has to decide what it is. Is it a law-enforcement organization that has some military capability, or is it a military organization with a law-enforcement mission? Of course, that decision is complicated by all Coast Guard’s non-military/non-operational law enforcement missions: e.g. ATON, environmental protection, etc. As I recall, one of the reasons the Coast Guard picked up Marine Safety was that the officers assigned as inspectors would be experience seamen. Now, as I understand it, Academy graduates can now have a full career without a single ship-board tour.
You said, “the 30mm has a higher rate and airburst ammunition not currently available for US 25mm guns.”
Only the short-barreled Apache helicopter version has a higher rate of fire of 625 rpm. As the video points out, the version the Marines use and the version that Army ground vehicles use is the M230 LF, which has a longer barrel (for higher velocity) but a much slower rate of fire, only 200 rpm, nearly the same as the 25mm MK 38 rate of fire of 180 rpm. Since the M230 LF (30×113 mm) rate of fire is nearly identical to the 25mm (200 rpm vs 180 rpm), and it has a lower muzzle velocity and shorter range than the 25mm, the only advantage is the proximity airburst feature for use against drones.
The video points out that the short-barreled Apache version, with the higher rate of fire (625 rpm) can use a short barrel because helicopters have the aerial advantage, firing from an altitude,, they fire downwards, not upwards. The ground version used by Marines and Army land vehicles needs a longer barrel because it will be firing upwards, not downwards, but the longer-barreled LF version has a slow 200 rpm rate of fire similar to the 25mm MK 38 .
By the way, I have a very similar collection of dummy rounds on my desk:
a 30 x 173mm, 25mm, 20mm, .and 50 caliber. I’m only missing the 30 x 113 mm! I’m trying to get a 57mm Bofors dummy but those are expensive and hard to come by, so I ordered a 3D-printed polymer version of the 57mm warhead instead, and then hopefully I’ll be able to find a 57mm empty brass case to put it in.
@David, right about the rate of fire. The FRCs in PATFORSWA have 30 x 173mm guns in their Mk38 mounts. That is a good solution allowing air-burst ammunition. Generally, what I was trying to advocate is the M230 as a replacement for the .50 cal. M2. But I was also pointing out that the M230 has the airburst ammunition, a capability the 25mm cannot provide, so having a 25mm does not mean the M230 is not needed, in addition, if not as a replacement.
DVIDS – News – 3d Marine Littoral Regiment Fires the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS)