Did the Chilean Type M's go through a similar upgrade to their Dutch & Belgian sisters or something a bit more home-grown? Cheers.
Royal Netherlands Navy
- Thread starter walter
- Start date
Which neatly shows why it is rarely sensible to just compare the cost of any defence project against any other on the basis of publically available prices. Unless you know in detail what the contracts include and exclude and how the purchaser accounts for expenditures you really have no idea how they equate
oldsig
Edit...spelling
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
As far as i know, they did not.
F832 Hr.Ms. Abraham van der Hulst and F830 Hr.Ms. Tjerk Hiddes were delivered to Chili in 2005 and 2007. That was before the Instandhoudingsprogramma M-fregatten (IPM), the upgrade/modernizing/sustainment program of the Belgian and Dutch navies, was started.
If im not wrong only the Goalkeepers were removed and the hangars were enlarged, in order to become suitable for the AS-332 Super Pumas.
As you can see on this recent photo of Almirante Blanco Encalada FF-15, there is no Goalkeeper anymore. Maybe the Dutch Navy kept the Goalkeepers for other ships as spare or maybe to be recycled for new ships. Walter or someone else, do you know something about it?
Attachments
Last edited:
walter
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #204
Indeed the Goalkeepers were removed,plan was to replace it with Phalanx.
Also hangar was enlarged to accommodate the Super Puma's/Cougars.
Goalkeepers are in store(and now are upgradet,new colour camera's,infrared camera's,new software,new computers,new controle console)
"In addition to missiles, the improved surface mode should allow the ships to tackle fast speedboats, Thales previously wrote "
"It should also now be possible to have several Goalkeepers work together on one ship. "
On the new (to be build)replacement M-class ,Goalkeeper will be replaced with someting like SeaRAM.
Also hangar was enlarged to accommodate the Super Puma's/Cougars.
Goalkeepers are in store(and now are upgradet,new colour camera's,infrared camera's,new software,new computers,new controle console)
"In addition to missiles, the improved surface mode should allow the ships to tackle fast speedboats, Thales previously wrote "
"It should also now be possible to have several Goalkeepers work together on one ship. "
On the new (to be build)replacement M-class ,Goalkeeper will be replaced with someting like SeaRAM.
Hi Sandhi, maybe a little late but some thoughts on the suppliers;
I think the navy itself never doubted that it needs at least two supply vessels. But the JSS was the result of the infamous "marinestudie 2005" and like the Holland Class was something the navy didn't actually want. The navy preferred a dedicated supplier and if the politicians found it necessary to have sealift, helicopter carrier, hospital facilities, command and control and amphibious capabilities... it would be best to build a separate hull for that. Instead they got what the "marinestudie" called a "defensiebreed inzetbaar ondersteuningsschip ".
However, while the JSS was meant to replace just the Zuiderkruis, the project encountered delays and in 2009 the ship would be a 100million euros more expensive than the originally planned 250 million. After that there where more budgetary setbacks and in the end the ship cost 407 million euros. And in 2013 in the midst of the depression the politicians wanted to sell the ship before it was even in service. Thankfully that didn't happen, but the navy did have to sell of the Amsterdam and there is some dodgy sharing agreement for the JSS with the German navy.
But the Doorman has not been doing that much RAS work and instead has been doing a lot of either disaster relief, or maintenance. And because she's shared with the Germans, the navy has practically been without a supply ship since 2014. However in the last few years there's been a little bit of room in the budget. And the first thing the navy needed was a new supply ship. The term "combat support ship" is part optics to placate the politicians because there where funds for "combat support".
But, it is also very much the intention that she'd be able to operate in "een hoger geweldsspectrum". And it seems like she'll be built to take some damage. Other than that she's intended to be a normal naval supply ship without any offensive role or capabilities. But at this point I do have to correct what Walter said above. Because as far as I have been able to find the CSS will be commissioned without heavy weapons and the NS100 radar. Apparently she'll be prepared to receive those systems at a later date.
Defensie en Damen bereiken overeenstemming over nieuw bevoorradingsschip
Nieuw bevoorradingsschip krijgt minder sensoren en wapens dan gedacht
I don't know how your Dutch is, but I believe there is a google translate thing on the page!
As for the M replacements. I am without doubt that they will end up as ships with fine sea-keeping abilities that are pleasant to operate. And I also think that ships that the Dutch navy was involved in designing have a good reputation, and Damen is a fine shipbuilder. But the Dutch government is terrible at supporting industry and many good opportunities have been lost because of it. So personally I have my doubts about other nations adopting this design. Mostly because our government is interested first and foremost in Unilever and behind that come Shell and Ahold. If those entities are fine, and it looks like they can retain their positions. Our politicians don't give a rats ass about much else.
Another problem is the design. Not much is yet know and if history is an indication there are several rounds of cost increases yet to come. And the Belgians are pretty set on buying two ships for 1 billion euros, and it seems to me that the budget doesn't fit the requirements. To me it's a surprise that the Belgians where able to reach a decision on any defense expenditure, this doesn't bode well for the program. If I look at the problems they have with even establishing a government (they are renowned for their long formation periods) I do expect that they are going to make problems later on.
With all this we have to consider who would actually want to cooperate with this program. I'm sure there would be many nations who would be well served with these ships as they are presented in concept. But I also heard that many where impressed with how the LCF's and the M-class upgrades gave great capabilities in a very economical way. So if they are able to provide the ship we are expecting for the price the Belgians are expecting. These ships would be interesting for all the countries named above, and maybe some others as well. Maybe even Indonesia?
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
GE Propulsion System For The Royal Netherlands Navy’s Combat Support Ship - Naval News
Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, in partnership with GE, will deliver a new Combat Support Ship to the Royal Netherlands Navy. GE’s robust, proven electric propulsion technology was selected for its low noise signature, high level of reliability and commonality with the Joint Support Ship...
www.navalnews.com
They talking about that "GE's robust, proven electric propulsion technology was selected for its low noise signature, high level of reliability and commonality with the Joint Support Ship (HNLMS Karel Doorman)."
But as far as i know the Karel Doorman JSS is equipped with 5x Rolls Royce Bergen dieselgeneratoren and 2x 8.900 kW elektromotoren
What if they're able to provide ships with basic sensors & weapons (maybe fitted for but not with some weapons, with the plan of fitting some refurbished secondhand equipment - does Belgium have anything in storage?) for the Belgian price, while the Netherlands gets the fully-equipped version?
walter
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #209
well this just came out:
'Talks on the sale of M-frigates Van Speijk and Van Amstel to Greece'
https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Toch-Nederlandse-fregatten-voor-Griekenland-100920.html
This can of course have far-reaching consequences for the KM, but it can also allow the vMFF to enter into service more quickly, and with an order of 4 new Greek boats as a replacement it could also be interesting due to the longer production (and lower price) to conclude a batch 2 contract with Damen for 2 additional FFFs after 2022. The order can also be adjusted:
Quote
- Ship 1 NL 2026
- Ship 2 BE 2027
- Ship 3 NL 2027
- Ship 4 BE 2028
- Ship 5 GR 2028
- Ship 6 GR 2029
- Ship 7 NL 2029
- Ship 8 GR 2030
- Ship 9 NL 2030
- Ship 10 GR 2030
Very much accelerated I see the first ship not being put into service but we can accelerate the follow-up production, I have brought the first two boats 1 year early above and the other 2 accelerated so that they can both be put into use 2 years earlier than the current schedule. For this, the price at Damen does not have to fall too much for the first 4 boats but the freed money is put into accelerated construction and delivery.
The best part, of course, is if this deal goes through that we can snare the Greeks for a series of 2 to 4 vLCFs as a follow-up order. In this way we connect the NL defence industry for several decades to give a good and well-known customer a win-win.
If we can transfer our current 2 MFF's to the Greeks in the first half of 2021, this will obviously create a (big) gap in our fleet, but it could also give the KM the opportunity to focus on the ongoing operations and ensure that there is sufficient personnel for the operations in which the crew of the new FFFs can gradually also work towards the new ships.
This "news"is not confirmed by the way.
But it seems the Greeks want an "interim"solution(possibly "M's" and a long term solution,possibly "M"replacements(vMFF)
'Talks on the sale of M-frigates Van Speijk and Van Amstel to Greece'
https://marineschepen.nl/nieuws/Toch-Nederlandse-fregatten-voor-Griekenland-100920.html
This can of course have far-reaching consequences for the KM, but it can also allow the vMFF to enter into service more quickly, and with an order of 4 new Greek boats as a replacement it could also be interesting due to the longer production (and lower price) to conclude a batch 2 contract with Damen for 2 additional FFFs after 2022. The order can also be adjusted:
Quote
- Ship 1 NL 2026
- Ship 2 BE 2027
- Ship 3 NL 2027
- Ship 4 BE 2028
- Ship 5 GR 2028
- Ship 6 GR 2029
- Ship 7 NL 2029
- Ship 8 GR 2030
- Ship 9 NL 2030
- Ship 10 GR 2030
Very much accelerated I see the first ship not being put into service but we can accelerate the follow-up production, I have brought the first two boats 1 year early above and the other 2 accelerated so that they can both be put into use 2 years earlier than the current schedule. For this, the price at Damen does not have to fall too much for the first 4 boats but the freed money is put into accelerated construction and delivery.
The best part, of course, is if this deal goes through that we can snare the Greeks for a series of 2 to 4 vLCFs as a follow-up order. In this way we connect the NL defence industry for several decades to give a good and well-known customer a win-win.
If we can transfer our current 2 MFF's to the Greeks in the first half of 2021, this will obviously create a (big) gap in our fleet, but it could also give the KM the opportunity to focus on the ongoing operations and ensure that there is sufficient personnel for the operations in which the crew of the new FFFs can gradually also work towards the new ships.
This "news"is not confirmed by the way.
But it seems the Greeks want an "interim"solution(possibly "M's" and a long term solution,possibly "M"replacements(vMFF)
Last edited:
walter
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #210
For now these contractors are involved in the building and outfitting of the new (to be build CSS"Den-Helder)
DSNS signed the first two contracts with RH Marine and Heinen & Hopman for the construction of CSS in March 2020.
Damen placed a contract with Wärtsilä for four diesel engines and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit in June 2020.
Rohde & Schwarz (R&S) was selected to install internal and external communication systems on board the vessel in July 2020.
DSNS contracted Alewijnse Marine for electrical installation works on board the CSS in July 2020. Holland Marine Lifts (HML) will provide ammunition elevator for the supply ship.
GE’s Power Conversion business was contracted by DSNS for an energy management and electric propulsion package for the vessel in September 2020. The contract includes the supply of main switchboards, main electric propulsion system with two 7.9MW shaft lines, and associated power management and remote-control systems.
In September 2020, DSNS signed a contract with Facet Netherlands for the supply of a helicopter refuelling system for the vessel. The system is expected to be delivered in the second half of 2021.
Thales is responsible for delivering high-technology radars for the vessel. DSNS signed two contracts with Newthex for doors and a hatch.
DSNS signed the first two contracts with RH Marine and Heinen & Hopman for the construction of CSS in March 2020.
Damen placed a contract with Wärtsilä for four diesel engines and a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) unit in June 2020.
Rohde & Schwarz (R&S) was selected to install internal and external communication systems on board the vessel in July 2020.
DSNS contracted Alewijnse Marine for electrical installation works on board the CSS in July 2020. Holland Marine Lifts (HML) will provide ammunition elevator for the supply ship.
GE’s Power Conversion business was contracted by DSNS for an energy management and electric propulsion package for the vessel in September 2020. The contract includes the supply of main switchboards, main electric propulsion system with two 7.9MW shaft lines, and associated power management and remote-control systems.
In September 2020, DSNS signed a contract with Facet Netherlands for the supply of a helicopter refuelling system for the vessel. The system is expected to be delivered in the second half of 2021.
Thales is responsible for delivering high-technology radars for the vessel. DSNS signed two contracts with Newthex for doors and a hatch.
walter
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #211
Here's an interesting piece about the A-26,also explains a bit about the Walrus replacement programme:
Maybe nice to read,also question is asked wether SAAB will participate in the upgrade programme for the Collins.
Saab's A26 Submarine Program Transitioning from Design to Production - Naval News
Maybe nice to read,also question is asked wether SAAB will participate in the upgrade programme for the Collins.
Saab's A26 Submarine Program Transitioning from Design to Production - Naval News
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
iXblue Tapped for Belgian and Royal Netherlands Navies MCM Replacement Program - Naval News
As part of the program to replace the naval Mine Counter Measures capability of the Belgian and Dutch navies, which includes the supply of twelve minehunters equipped with drones (Toolbox), ECA GROUP has signed an agreement with iXblue for the supply of Forward Looking Sonars (FLS), as well as...
www.navalnews.com
The plan is to receive the new MCM-vessels/minehunters between 2025 and 2030, hopefully there will be not too much delays and cost overruns.
Marine krijgt nieuwe schepen
De Koninklijke Marine krijgt de komende jaren meerdere nieuwe schepen. In het oog springt de komst van een 2e bevoorradingsschip. Daarnaast vervangt de marine beide M-fregatten (multiporpose) en 6 mijnenbestrijdingsvaartuigen. Die laatste 2 typen ontwikkelt Nederland samen met België. Vandaag...
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Not provided by HSA/Thales Nederland. Because the minehunters will be build for the Belgian and Dutch navies, we should expect that the components and systems will be delivered by companies from these two countries as much as possible. So its quite disappointing.
www.navalnews.com
Chess Dynamics to Supply Sea Eagle FCEO for Belgian and Royal Netherlands Navies future MCM Vessels - Naval News
Chess Dynamics has been awarded a contract by French shipbuilders KERSHIP for the supply of electro-optical surveillance systems across 12 innovative new Mine Counter Measures Vessels (MCMV), which are being supplied to the Belgian and Royal Netherlands Navies.
www.navalnews.com
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Whats the reason to not use the Goalkeeper anymore, political pressure from Washington?
The HSA Goalkeeper is a proven design with superior performance and also exported to several countries.
The Upkeep Modification tests are passed well and it will once again bring performance of the Goalkeeper system to the highest operational status, in correspondence with the Royal Netherlands Navy’s ambition to optimally protect its crew and ships during overseas deployments.
Its sad if once again something great from the Netherlands will disappear, including the expertise and knowhow.
RAPIDFire: Thales and Nexter to equip French Navy ships with new CIWS system - Naval News
The RAPIDFire system developed by the consortium formed by Thales and Nexter has been chosen by the French defence procurement agency (DGA) to equip future French Navy vessels with new artillery. This new system will provide the Navy’s surface vessels with an effective close-in defence...
www.navalnews.com
Do you think that the Thales RAPIDFire (from Thompson-CSF and GIAT) makes any chance? Or will the Netherlands government choose the Phalanx/SeaRAM just to show their loyalty to their masters?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Wouldn’t mind seeing the RapidFire gun as an upgrade for our DeWolfe in the future although I am a big fan of the Millennium 35mm.
I don't think effectiveness was against Goalkeeper.
It's bigger & heavier than Phalanx, & partly under the deck, making it harder to fit in every way. Phalanx can be (& is) swapped between ships quite easily, & was regarded as good enough. I expect it's also cheaper.
Rapidfire is like Phalanx in that it's not deck-penetrating, & the system seems to be light. I've seen three tons for an installation. Fit it anywhere, on any vessel . . .
Leonardo will do you a 2 ton non deck-penetrating 40mm, but only 72 ready to fire rounds (Marlin 40).
It's bigger & heavier than Phalanx, & partly under the deck, making it harder to fit in every way. Phalanx can be (& is) swapped between ships quite easily, & was regarded as good enough. I expect it's also cheaper.
Rapidfire is like Phalanx in that it's not deck-penetrating, & the system seems to be light. I've seen three tons for an installation. Fit it anywhere, on any vessel . . .
Leonardo will do you a 2 ton non deck-penetrating 40mm, but only 72 ready to fire rounds (Marlin 40).
walter
Active Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #218
Well Sandhi(and everyone who's interested)there are a few reasons why Goalkeeper will not be on the new frigates for the Dutch and Belgian navies.
here's an explanation by Sjef Pijls(who worked as a technical weapons officer in the Dutch Navy)
"Search for goalkeeper's successor in navy leads abroad in the first place"
DEN Helder
The Goalkeeper was a successful Dutch marine product. Now that a successor is being sought, a number of things have been determined in advance. The new weapon to protect warships from missiles or drones will not become a Dutch invention and will cost much more money than the Goalkeeper.
The Goalkeeper consists of a Gatling gun attached to a radar. The cannon raises a barrage of steel against incoming threats to the ship. "The new weapons should be capable of intercepting missiles, cruise missiles, grenades, mortars, drones and aircraft at very close range," said a Ministry of Defence spokesman. "They must also be able to retaliate very fast and complex attacks. They also need to disable fast-moving boats.
The House of Representatives is also working on the replacement. There is a lot of study, reports Secretary of State Barbara Visser to the people's parliament, but it will not be a laser weapon: "Defence is following developments in the field of lasers and is also conducting its own research into the applicability of laser weapons. For the time being, the technology has not yet come to the point where lasers can be used to defend against incoming missiles. However, the design of new ships takes these developments into account so that such weapons can be placed in the future", reports Visser. The U.S. Navy is one step further. Just before the summer, a successful test with a laser gun would have been done aboard a ship in the Pacific Fleet.
Cold War
"When I was on the material management in the 1990s, we expected Goalkeeper to be replaced around 2010," says Sjef Pijls, a longtime naval weapons officer. "This expectation was based on the then developments of offensive weapons, such as attack patterns, speed, misleading movements, the development of sufficient computing capacity, etc. Fortunately, by the end of the Cold War, these developments have not happened so quickly and I think Goalkeeper is still on his task. The system is now 35 years old and this means that conservation is becoming increasingly problematic and expensive."
The Royal Navy hopes to use it until 2030, while a successor is being sought to be introduced in the second half of this decade.
However, just as is the case with the worn cannons on the LC frigates, the age of Goalkeeper can cause a growing number of problems on board the war fleet.
Technical
Pijls mentions a number of factors: "The cannon has been out of production for twenty years and I suspect that spare parts become scarce; The technicians we used to have at the Navy company who could make everything may have been cut back by the managers. But electrical and electronic components are also unlikely to be delivered forever. At greater distances, you can damage the target's radar or shoot the wings off, on which it probably dives harmlessly into the water somewhere; that's what we call system kill. For this, the cannons and guided weapons are usable. However, at distances below 1500 metres this is no longer enough because the target is then in a ballistic orbit and there is a good chance that it will still hit the ship. At short distances it is therefore necessary to hit the combat charge with enough energy so that the target destroys itself, which is called 'warhead kill'. Goalkeeper has been developed for this purpose.
The problem with the replacement of Goalkeeper is that the weapon has to work from zero meters away and that can only be done with a cannon. Guided projectiles have a minimum distance on which they can function and although they are small in modern projectiles, it makes them unsuitable for the Goalkeeper role. The Rolling Airframe Missile, used by the Germans and the Americans, has a minimum distance of about 400 meters, but if it misses at that distance, even if it's only inches, it's really wrong. If Goalkeeper misses at 400 meters he can still take the target at a shorter distance.
Even though the extra-service commander has been an off-duty civilian for quite some time, Sjef Pijls continues to study on issues concerning ship cannons and ammunition: "We now have the same problem as in the 1970s: cannons with sufficient caliber have too low a fire pace and cannons with sufficient fire tempo have too small a caliber", the former officer outlines. "No doubt a new cannon can be developed, but for the relatively small need of the Royal Navy it becomes very costly. It must therefore be combined with other European countries; the policy of the Anglo-Saxon countries is mainly determined by the guided-arms industry (missiles, ed.)."
Caliber
According to Pijls, similar weapons systems, developed more or less simultaneously with Goalkeeper, both have too small a caliber: "The Americans have already moved away from Phalanx; I don't know why. The other weapon is the Spanish Meroka, which works according to the principle 'wall of steel' which has been improved each time and may work, but at too short a distance", according to Pijls. The Meroka works with two rows of six Oerlikon runs. It is an impressive cannon, but dates back to the eighties and is little younger than Goalkeeper.
On the arms market, there are plenty of modern candidates available for the so-called Close In Weapon System. However, there is a hefty price tag attached. Not only are the guns bigger; also the ammunition is more advanced and therefore costly. Grenades that fold open and throw hundreds of smaller projectiles into the path of the oncoming target produce impressive results. One example is the Oerlikon Ahead munitions that spread a cloud of metal, disintegrating a missile or drone.
There are more possibilities states Defense. For example, the Thales Pharos radar has been developed to disable air and sea targets in combination with a large caliber cannon. The Italian Leonardo-Finmeccanica also offers a new cannon, the Sovraponte. Thales, one of the most important partners of the Royal Navy, has developed an interesting weapons system for the French navy with Rapidfire. And then there are the Germans of Rheinmetall – also supplier of the Dutch armed forces – who have a close-in cannon in production.
Sjef Pijls is curious which system Goalkeeper will follow: "I have already been awake to this question and I assume that my successors on the management equipment are still awake from that."."
So as he said Goalkeeper was and is actually(after the upgrade)still a formideble system,and also interesting to read is that that a rocket/missile based anti-missile system isn't the best "end-phase"solution,it's still a canon based system.
It's a translated Dutch article.
Here's an old video when the GoalKeeper was demonstrated to the the US Navy.
here's an explanation by Sjef Pijls(who worked as a technical weapons officer in the Dutch Navy)
"Search for goalkeeper's successor in navy leads abroad in the first place"
DEN Helder
The Goalkeeper was a successful Dutch marine product. Now that a successor is being sought, a number of things have been determined in advance. The new weapon to protect warships from missiles or drones will not become a Dutch invention and will cost much more money than the Goalkeeper.
The Goalkeeper consists of a Gatling gun attached to a radar. The cannon raises a barrage of steel against incoming threats to the ship. "The new weapons should be capable of intercepting missiles, cruise missiles, grenades, mortars, drones and aircraft at very close range," said a Ministry of Defence spokesman. "They must also be able to retaliate very fast and complex attacks. They also need to disable fast-moving boats.
The House of Representatives is also working on the replacement. There is a lot of study, reports Secretary of State Barbara Visser to the people's parliament, but it will not be a laser weapon: "Defence is following developments in the field of lasers and is also conducting its own research into the applicability of laser weapons. For the time being, the technology has not yet come to the point where lasers can be used to defend against incoming missiles. However, the design of new ships takes these developments into account so that such weapons can be placed in the future", reports Visser. The U.S. Navy is one step further. Just before the summer, a successful test with a laser gun would have been done aboard a ship in the Pacific Fleet.
Cold War
"When I was on the material management in the 1990s, we expected Goalkeeper to be replaced around 2010," says Sjef Pijls, a longtime naval weapons officer. "This expectation was based on the then developments of offensive weapons, such as attack patterns, speed, misleading movements, the development of sufficient computing capacity, etc. Fortunately, by the end of the Cold War, these developments have not happened so quickly and I think Goalkeeper is still on his task. The system is now 35 years old and this means that conservation is becoming increasingly problematic and expensive."
The Royal Navy hopes to use it until 2030, while a successor is being sought to be introduced in the second half of this decade.
However, just as is the case with the worn cannons on the LC frigates, the age of Goalkeeper can cause a growing number of problems on board the war fleet.
Technical
Pijls mentions a number of factors: "The cannon has been out of production for twenty years and I suspect that spare parts become scarce; The technicians we used to have at the Navy company who could make everything may have been cut back by the managers. But electrical and electronic components are also unlikely to be delivered forever. At greater distances, you can damage the target's radar or shoot the wings off, on which it probably dives harmlessly into the water somewhere; that's what we call system kill. For this, the cannons and guided weapons are usable. However, at distances below 1500 metres this is no longer enough because the target is then in a ballistic orbit and there is a good chance that it will still hit the ship. At short distances it is therefore necessary to hit the combat charge with enough energy so that the target destroys itself, which is called 'warhead kill'. Goalkeeper has been developed for this purpose.
The problem with the replacement of Goalkeeper is that the weapon has to work from zero meters away and that can only be done with a cannon. Guided projectiles have a minimum distance on which they can function and although they are small in modern projectiles, it makes them unsuitable for the Goalkeeper role. The Rolling Airframe Missile, used by the Germans and the Americans, has a minimum distance of about 400 meters, but if it misses at that distance, even if it's only inches, it's really wrong. If Goalkeeper misses at 400 meters he can still take the target at a shorter distance.
Even though the extra-service commander has been an off-duty civilian for quite some time, Sjef Pijls continues to study on issues concerning ship cannons and ammunition: "We now have the same problem as in the 1970s: cannons with sufficient caliber have too low a fire pace and cannons with sufficient fire tempo have too small a caliber", the former officer outlines. "No doubt a new cannon can be developed, but for the relatively small need of the Royal Navy it becomes very costly. It must therefore be combined with other European countries; the policy of the Anglo-Saxon countries is mainly determined by the guided-arms industry (missiles, ed.)."
Caliber
According to Pijls, similar weapons systems, developed more or less simultaneously with Goalkeeper, both have too small a caliber: "The Americans have already moved away from Phalanx; I don't know why. The other weapon is the Spanish Meroka, which works according to the principle 'wall of steel' which has been improved each time and may work, but at too short a distance", according to Pijls. The Meroka works with two rows of six Oerlikon runs. It is an impressive cannon, but dates back to the eighties and is little younger than Goalkeeper.
On the arms market, there are plenty of modern candidates available for the so-called Close In Weapon System. However, there is a hefty price tag attached. Not only are the guns bigger; also the ammunition is more advanced and therefore costly. Grenades that fold open and throw hundreds of smaller projectiles into the path of the oncoming target produce impressive results. One example is the Oerlikon Ahead munitions that spread a cloud of metal, disintegrating a missile or drone.
There are more possibilities states Defense. For example, the Thales Pharos radar has been developed to disable air and sea targets in combination with a large caliber cannon. The Italian Leonardo-Finmeccanica also offers a new cannon, the Sovraponte. Thales, one of the most important partners of the Royal Navy, has developed an interesting weapons system for the French navy with Rapidfire. And then there are the Germans of Rheinmetall – also supplier of the Dutch armed forces – who have a close-in cannon in production.
Sjef Pijls is curious which system Goalkeeper will follow: "I have already been awake to this question and I assume that my successors on the management equipment are still awake from that."."
So as he said Goalkeeper was and is actually(after the upgrade)still a formideble system,and also interesting to read is that that a rocket/missile based anti-missile system isn't the best "end-phase"solution,it's still a canon based system.
It's a translated Dutch article.
Here's an old video when the GoalKeeper was demonstrated to the the US Navy.
Last edited:
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the info and explanation.
So, because the GAU-8 is not anymore in production and the existing Goalkeepers are start to wear and because larger caliber gunsystems give better results than 20 mm systems, the best candidates are at the moment the Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm and HSA's mothercompany's RAPIDFire 40 mm.
So, because the GAU-8 is not anymore in production and the existing Goalkeepers are start to wear and because larger caliber gunsystems give better results than 20 mm systems, the best candidates are at the moment the Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm and HSA's mothercompany's RAPIDFire 40 mm.
I do wonder how effective RAPIDFire 40mm really is against missiles since their marketing on anti-air capabilities seems to focus a lot on UAVs? Even against the 40mm Bofors, the RAPIDFire 40mm seems at a disadvantage with a slower 200 rpm rate of fire compared to 300 rpm and presumably shorter range due to the smaller 40mm CTAS cartridge compared to the 40mm Bofors. Maybe RAPIDFire's newer mount design offers better accuracy and the 40 CTAS air burst round offers a more effective dispersion pattern for its tungsten pellets than the Bofors to compensate?