# The CIWS Discussion



## drunknsubmrnr (7 Feb 2009)

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 (8 Feb 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Feb 2009)

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 (8 Feb 2009)

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 (8 Feb 2009)

> 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 (8 Feb 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Feb 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> 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 (8 Feb 2009)

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



And that knowledge has already been shared.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (9 Feb 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Feb 2009)

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


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (9 Feb 2009)

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 (9 Feb 2009)

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


----------



## gman250 (12 Feb 2009)

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 (13 Feb 2009)

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 (14 Feb 2009)

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 (14 Feb 2009)

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 (14 Feb 2009)

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 (14 Feb 2009)

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


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 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 (14 Feb 2009)

Nope this one:

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

Thanks Sapper.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

SeaRam....that will teach me from texting all day.

Edit: Datsheet
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_searam_datasheet.pdf


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> SeaRam....that will teach me from texting all day.



:clubinhand:

 ;D


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

Ah yes, I thats what I thought you meant. The rolling airframe missile does look pretty neat, do you have any experience with it?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

Looks like a Phalanx mated to a missle battery.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

Only from talking with sailors from the USN. They like it and swear by it, my hesitation for it would be less rounds then a 20 mm.



> Looks like a Phalanx mated to a missle battery.


In a nutshell thats all it is.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Only from talking with sailors from the USN. They like it and swear by it, my hesitation for it would be less rounds then a 20 mm.
> In a nutshell thats all it is.



yeah 11 missles a wee bit lite IMHO


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Only from talking with sailors from the USN. They like it and swear by it, my hesitation for it would be less rounds then a 20 mm.



That is a concern, I believe that in this configuration, it only contains 11 missiles. That being said, you have to wonder how many targets the regular Phalanx can engage before it needs reloading. With 1500 rounds, and at a rate of 75 rounds per second, that is only 20 seconds of continuous fire, so you have to wonder how many missiles could you shoot down in 20 seconds?

Also, I believe the Burke's carry two Phalanx's, so in theory one could have the regular 20mm cannon, and the other could have the SeaRam. Although, there may or may not be an advantage to doing so, which would depend on operational requirements I suppose.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

The RAM Block 0 has a 21 round launcher, which is what you will find on some USN ships.



> That is a concern, I believe that in this configuration, it only contains 11 missiles. That being said, you have to wonder how many targets the regular Phalanx can engage before it needs reloading. With 1500 rounds, and at a rate of 75 rounds per second, that is only 20 seconds of continuous fire, so you have to wonder how many missiles could you shoot down in 20 seconds?


That I would say is the billion dollar question....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

now do they carry extras to reload after or do they have to put in to be reloaded?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> now do they carry extras to reload after or do they have to put in to be reloaded?



Well the missile is about 9 ft long I would hazard a guess and say no, that never came up.


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

As much as I hate to cite wikipedia, it does have a picture of some US sailors reloading the RAM launcher on a US aircraft carrier. So it could be possible, maybe not very feasible though.

SeaRam Reload


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

doh, didn't think about that part.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> As much as I hate to cite wikipedia, it does have a picture of some US sailors reloading the RAM launcher on a US aircraft carrier.



Well a carrier has much more room to store stuff versus a say a destroyer/frigate.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> As much as I hate to cite wikipedia, it does have a picture of some US sailors reloading the RAM launcher on a US aircraft carrier. So it could be possible, maybe not very feasible though.
> 
> SeaRam Reload



Actually the caption has them downloading the RAM, so maybe on larger ships then it is possible.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Actually the caption has them downloading the RAM, so maybe on larger ships then it is possible.



Wouldn't want to try it in any sea state weather.


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

That makes sense, maybe on an aircraft carrier it is possible, but I would think that on a frigate/destroyer, it would be a lot harder to store 9 ft long missiles than boxes of 20mm ammo. In addition to the fact that it would be much harder to handle them, especially in any type of sea state, as you mentioned


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

Metal Storm has been talked about as well for CIWS, so in the future it might be a contender.

http://www.metalstorm.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,79/


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

That would be quite interesting, to say the least. As long as we are talking about possible future applications, I would like to see a miniaturized laser weapon similar to the Airborne Laser System, now that would be something.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> That would be quite interesting, to say the least. As long as we are talking about possible future applications, I would like to see a miniaturized laser weapon similar to the Airborne Laser System, now that would be something.



But how would it fair in an ocean enviroment with all those delicate electronics?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Feb 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> That would be quite interesting, to say the least. As long as we are talking about possible future applications, I would like to see a miniaturized laser weapon similar to the Airborne Laser System, now that would be something.





			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> But how would it fair in an ocean enviroment with all those delicate electronics?



And it would have to have some sort of stabilization too.


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

It probably would not work very well, that is why I don't see it happening anytime soon, but it would be pretty cool if it did.


----------



## childs56 (14 Feb 2009)

The one question I would have to ask would be what todays threats are compared to what they would be in the near and distant future. Also what the actual attacks if any have been made in the recent few years, along with the sucess rates of such equipment being deployed on ships. 
Can we be over protected in one area and not enough in another? Haveing a close to medium range capability with the CIWIS and the Deckgun along with a long stand off with the VLS what else do we need at present time.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

It would be cool for sure...another factor would be rate of fire and recharge rate for the weapon.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2009)

CTD said:
			
		

> The one question I would have to ask would be what todays threats are compared to what they would be in the near and distant future. Also what the actual attacks if any have been made in the recent few years, along with the sucess rates of such equipment being deployed on ships.
> Can we be over protected in one area and not enough in another? Haveing a close to medium range capability with the CIWIS and the Deckgun along with a long stand off with the VLS what else do we need at present time.



I would also put that in the billion dollar question category. If you operate in a Task Group then you hope another unit can cover the aspect your lacking in.


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

Hence the US Navy slang for destroyers: Torpedo Sponge


----------



## aesop081 (14 Feb 2009)

CTD said:
			
		

> what else do we need at present time.



Oh i guess i will be the one to torpedo this thread and say whats on everyone's mind.........

Carrier-based fighters and AEW aircraft.




There, thus dies this thread.......... Sharks with laser beams attached are a bit more realistic.


----------



## Galahad (14 Feb 2009)

How about nuclear subs to patrol in the Arctic?


----------



## Snakedoc (15 Feb 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Oh i guess i will be the one to torpedo this thread and say whats on everyone's mind.........
> 
> Carrier-based fighters and AEW aircraft.
> 
> ...



Well if we need carrier-based fighters, we need the carriers that go along with them too then


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Feb 2009)

Back on topic

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Feb 2009)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Well if we need carrier-based fighters, we need the carriers that go along with them too then



We do, they are the CF-188's.



> Many features that made the F/A-18 suitable for naval carrier operations were also retained by the Canadian Forces, such as the robust landing gear, the arrestor hook, and wing-folding mechanisms, which proved useful when operating the fighters from smaller airfields such as those found in the Arctic.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Back on topic
> 
> Milnet.Ca Staff



What about something along the lines of The Armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS)?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Feb 2009)

We use tungsten now.


----------



## Galahad (16 Feb 2009)

Is there an advantage to using tungsten APDS rounds as opposed to standard High Explosive, or High Explosive Armour Piercing rounds? Because usually APDS rounds are used against tanks, and so far as I know, missiles do not have armour.

Wouldn't high explosive rounds with proximity fuses be more effective?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Feb 2009)

Rounds made of denser material (tungsten) penetrate better better chance of causing damage.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Feb 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> Wouldn't high explosive rounds with proximity fuses be more effective?



The idea is to chew up the missile and shred it out of the sky. You dont need HE for that.


----------



## Galahad (17 Feb 2009)

Yes, I suppose that does make sense. I would guess that they probably tested this a long time ago and must have found that APDS rounds were more effective.

I was just curious if a wall of flak would be more effective than a wall of tungsten slugs, but I guess for the purposes of shooting down missiles, it isn't.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Feb 2009)

Heck you can use ballbearings, just have to get them moving fast enough.


----------



## Galahad (18 Feb 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The idea is to chew up the missile and shred it out of the sky. You dont need HE for that.



In that case wouldn't a direct hit with a high explosive round do more damage than a sabot just smashing strait through it?

Or maybe the problem is that missiles are so small that by the time the fuse triggers, the round has already passed through the other side of the missile?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Feb 2009)

look at it this way...you may also be destroying the guidance system, or other peripheral electronics onboard the missile that even may cause the missile to break lock on your ship. Don't forget the ship is using a CIWS as a _last resort_ you either get it right the first time with something that is going to hit the missile hard and cause catastrophic damage or hope that a cloud of fragments will cause enough damage.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2009)

Theres more to avoiding a missile hit that firing the CWIS alone.......

Nuf said.


----------

