Rotal Navy CIWS

[Matt]

Why are some vessels in RN service fitted with the Phalanx 20mm and others Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS systems?

Surley if one of these systems was superior to the other, the most effective one would be fitted to all ships rather than have a run off between two systems.

Finally, why are the T45's going to be fitted with Phalanx rather than SEA RAM or the larger Goalkeeper?

Cheers

Matt

 

[slapshot]

Hi Mat. There maybe a number of reasons for using the Phalanx system over Goalkeeper not the lest of which is political but here is a quick comparision of the two systems and as I am unfamillar with the type of ship the RN plans to put the Phalanx system on maybe you could tell me if some of the points on the comparision might be a vallid reason for choosing the Phalanx.

Compared with the Phalanx CIWS the Goalkeeper is more expensive, Goalkeeper costs more than twice as much as Phalanx and
is harder to install as Phalanx can be welded to any section of deck and plugged in aqnd Goalkeeper requires significant structural modifications.

Phalanx fires continuously until the target is destroyed, Goalkeeper fires a burst of at least 1 second (70 rounds) but can switch targets depending on threat to ship. Equal weapons range on average as Phalanx 1B can kill targets out to 3500 meters and is more accurate up to a kill distance of 300 meters I believe thow that maybe propaganda .

Goalkeepers new FMPDS (Frangible Metal Penetrator Discarding Sabot) provides more Kinetic energy than the Phalanx rounds
and can track more targets as Phalanx only keeps track of the current target.

Reloading is a big difference as the Phalanx ammo drum is put directly into the gun, the Goalkeeper is reloaded below deck but Goalkeeper can be operated in three modes - Auto, Semi-Auto and Manual where Phalanx is fully automatic so there is good points to both systems and bad points and like I said I am not famillar with the type of vessel the RN is planning to put in service with Phalanx. Hope that helped you

 

[adsH]

I think cost was an issue last time i asked around about this. The Main reason could be space related the Goalkeeper takes up significant space under the deck. but I would say all the Royal Navy personal involved with the system (that i know) seem to prefer the Goalkeeper. At the end of the day its not Royal navy's decision, it the Capability analyst at the MOD that decide which system would work out more cost effective for use. so there can be numerous reasons for the mixed choices.

 

[Dr Phobus]

Hello,

I imagine that phalanx will give way too Sea RAM as the RN's next CIWS "system" after all, gun based systems are coming under question for super-sonic heavy weight sea skimming ASCM's. Sea RAM offer's a straigth forward simple up-grade, and its already in full production, it will be a low risk solution. This is why i argue the Type 45 daring class is fitted with the phalanx system.

CIWS fit in RN warships (this is an over view there maybe some gaps):

Phalanx is fitted too, some of the invinsible class carriers, fort victoria class, fitted for but not with wave knight class, daring class (forthcoming), sheffield class (8 units active), ocean class,

goal keeper, broadsword batch 3, albion, one of the invinsible class,

note: type 23 duke class, has no CIWS in the classical sence, also the QE CV is pictured with Sea RAM system. (yes its an artist impression)

 

[mark22w]

Re: Royal Navy CIWS

The T22/23 Frigates have used ‘Sea Wolf’ missiles as their CIWS since the 1980’s and in the case of the batch III T22’s interestingly alongside the Goalkeeper CIWS.

I agree with an earlier post that weight and complexity (amount of space required below deck) favoured Phalanx over Goalkeeper in certain RN ships. Plans to introduce a light weight ‘Sea Wolf’ system sadly came to nothing in the T42’s...