The CIWS Discussion

[drunknsubmrnr]

There are huge differences in capabilities between Phalanx and Goalkeeper...there should be, Goalkeeper is far larger, to the point it requires the ship to be built around it, rather than the reverse. Phalanx on the other hand can be pretty much bolted on, wired up and it's ready to go.

They only look similar....there's a huge difference. 20mm vs 30mm is only a very small part of it.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Anyone who is willing to argue semantic differences of this nature is not a suitable person to ask for enlightenment my friend, their only reason for existence is to be right to the exclusion of all others. Every western Navy has some equivalent to goalkeeper or phalanx that performs the same function in the same way. The differences are not worthy of mention outside the circles of people who design or procure them. The way I see it, if it makes them happy to nitpick nothing subjects and be right about them, there's nothing to be gained by arguing.

I dont agree with this at all.  We, the members of the Navy use this kit, and as Ex-Dragoon mentioned, rely on it to keep us alive.  The smaller details may not be important to you, but that doesnt mean they arent important to others.  You have to remember the audience here.  There are people on the outside looking in, that are interested in general information, and there are insiders like me, still untrained, that are very keen on the minute details.  I dont think you should have been snapped at initially, but you havent exactly been inocent in all of this either.

So back to the phalanx, vs the goalkeeper...

Which system do you guys think is better?  I did some poking around on a few sites and there does not seem to be any consencus.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Dutch sailors I have worked with in the past seem to have a hate on for the Goalkeeper, The Brits don't seem to mind it as well. What I like about the Phalanx is what drunksubmrnr outlined plus we have the version with the most utility out there.

 

[Galahad]

From a technical perspective, there aren't any meaningful differences between the two of them: similar range, rate of fire, ammunition capacity and size/weight. The main difference is in the mounting, Phalanx can be added onto just about any existing ship, as it only requires electricity and cooling water, whereas Goalkeeper extends about 3m below the deck.

In terms of 'better' I would say the Goalkeeper has a slight advantage due to the extra size and mass of the 30mm round, but since the Phalanx is easier to mount, you could easily add more of them to give you overlapping coverage.

Although I should point out that I do not have first hand experience with either of these systems, this is just my engineering assessment.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

In terms of 'better' I would say the Goalkeeper has a slight advantage due to the extra size and mass of the 30mm round,

Unfortunately larger does not mean better.

 

[aesop081]

this is just my engineering assessment.

Unfortunately, theres alot more to weapons systems than engineering. With no practical experience or any relevant training, your assesment is rather limited in scope.

 

[Galahad]

Unfortunately, theres alot more to weapons systems than engineering. With no practical experience or any relevant training, your assesment is rather limited in scope.

I know I am new here, but I was simply offering an opinion which I freely admitted was based solely on what I have a working knowledge of, which is engineering. I am sure there are other factors to this discussion, but I did not discuss them, as I have no experience with them, which I initially stated.

Anyone who does have this knowledge, feel free to share it in this thread.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Anyone who does have this knowledge, feel free to share it in this thread.

And that knowledge has already been shared.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I know I am new here, but I was simply offering an opinion which I freely admitted was based solely on what I have a working knowledge of, which is engineering. I am sure there are other factors to this discussion, but I did not discuss them, as I have no experience with them, which I initially stated.

Anyone who does have this knowledge, feel free to share it in this thread.

There are major differences on both the mechanical and electronic engineering sides. Open loop vs closed loop control...COTS vs embedded....deck-penetrating  vs non-deck-penetrating.

I'll say it again...they just look similar. In effect they're the difference between a small modern frigate and an older cruiser.

 

[Galahad]

That being the case, to answer Mavericks question, you are saying that the Phalanx is better?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I'm saying they're different. If you happen to have the space and weight available for Goalkeeper, and you have a need for a less than completely accurate high-powered system, maybe it would work out for you better. I think Phalanx worked out better for the CF.

 

[Galahad]

That sounds fair to me. I bow before superior knowledge.

 

[gman250]

Goalkeeper is a 30mm vice 20mm with CIWS. Yes, larger may not be better, but their muzzle velocity are similar.  That being said, reload for CIWS is a bit more involved and time sensitive. Their are pro and cons for both. Also, and country dynamic, it depends on how a system is employed. Purely stand alone, or intergraded with a command and control system at some level.
my2cents

 

[STONEY]

Its sort of like comparing a Chevy Cavalier to a BMW.
They are both cars, both have wheels, both have an engine,both have seats.
They are different in price & capabilities and depending on what you are intending to use them for  offer different things to different people.

If you were offered any one you wanted which one would you take????

 

[childs56]

CDN Aviator good to see you layed the smack down on a person who at least added something to the discussion. Unlike yourself.
Just because Galahad is not in the Navy and does not have actual expierance with the systems in discussion it is obvious he looked at a few of the specs on size weight  capabilities of both the systems then added some interesting information  between the two systems. It's amazing how you guys can put a person down and make them or others not want to post on your website.. Maybe you want to make it truly a military only discussion with people in the know only, thats how we definatly move ahead.

Sorry ExDragoon for the mix up in names.
Good post  Galahad

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

CTD you must be blind and a little thick if you believe I laid any smack down upon Galahad. My 3 posts in this topic have been  polite and cordial. Do you recognize what a smiley is or do I have to explain it to you? And did your post really add to the discussion in hand? No, then again your posts tend to be like that anyways. Again if you don't like how things are run here, you always have 3 options.
1) IM Mike Bobbitt
2) Keep your comments to yourself
3) Leave the site.
Grow up dude...

 

[Galahad]

Ok then, getting back to the topic at hand...

I think the consensus seems to be that Phalanx is better for the Canadian Navy in the sense that it is better suited to our needs, if I have interpreted the last few posts correctly.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Have you looked at the C-RAM? That appears to be a nice system as well.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Have you looked at the C-RAM? That appears to be a nice system as well.

You mean this item Ex-D?

Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nope this one:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ram.htm

Thanks Sapper.