he sould use the Goalkeeper. A good defence or a sunken ship, it's up to you..
Split from here - erik_t
| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| Western CIWS discussions (split from crazy huge CGN) http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=559 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | ALVAMA [ December 30th, 2010, 8:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Western CIWS discussions (split from crazy huge CGN) |
he sould use the Goalkeeper. A good defence or a sunken ship, it's up to you.. Split from here - erik_t |
|
| Author: | Dreadnaught [ December 31st, 2010, 8:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour |
Totally awesome. Looks like a Long Beach on steriods and HGH. As for using Goalkeeper on a US ship I believe the Goalkeeper's 30mm gat is from the US and is simliar to the gun mounted on the A10. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ December 31st, 2010, 9:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour |
goalkeeper utilises indeed the same gun as the A-10. also, the USN has tested the goalkeeper, but they didn't wanted an 'foreign' system. so it is possible it could be placed on this ship, although it costs as much as 10 phalanxes (but IMO, it is worth the money )
|
|
| Author: | erik_t [ December 31st, 2010, 4:37 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour | |
goalkeeper utilises indeed the same gun as the A-10. also, the USN has tested the goalkeeper, but they didn't wanted an 'foreign' system. so it is possible it could be placed on this ship, although it costs as much as 10 phalanxes (but IMO, it is worth the money
The other issue is that Phalanx would have to remain in the fleet regardless, as it has a much (MUCH) lower footprint in weight and below-decks volume. Many USN ships with Phalanx could not accept Goalkeeper. And there is a huge drive for commonality - one wants as few systems in the fleet as possible. This means a common supply chain, common training requirements and so on. )Given the additional factor that CIWS is by nature a last-ditch weapon, and if it's firing you've already screwed the pooch to some degree, I think the USN made the right decision based on its own situation and requirements. |
||
| Author: | klagldsf [ December 31st, 2010, 7:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour |
Plus, I'm not sure if a system that costs as much as 10 of the other guy's mount is really worth it since I haven't seen any performance figures that suggest that Goalkeeper is worth that cost, especially since RAM offers far superior performance than either system (and is designed specifically to replace both systems). |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ December 31st, 2010, 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour |
RAM is newer, so I wasn't taking it into mind for this..... but for an ship of that time, the goalkeeper offers more range, and because it fires in shorter bursts it can attack more targets at the same time. for an ship like this that means you have to fit fewer mounds, and if I am correct (I'm not sure about that) the phalanx can't provide 360 degrees cover, while the goalkeeper can (of course this depends on other guidance systems on board, I am now only talking about the inbuild systems) ( and the fact that it is dutch makes me favor it too )
|
|
| Author: | Mitchell van Os [ December 31st, 2010, 7:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour |
Goalkeeper cant do 360 if it depents on guidance on board? WTF you talking about? Goalkeeper has its own aerial search and tracking radars. When the ships radars are down exept data-handeling. And electricity. Then the goalkeeper can still be used!!! Aswell the srboc(super-rapid-bloom-off-chaff). Thats why it costs so much. And is so reliable. It is the only ciws on earth that can auto track and search and kill. While the whole ships crew is DEAD! (ofcourse it has to be activated before crew dies. And must be loaded otherwise the system is more dumb then a mouse) This is what i have learned. And short bursts? That is one of the modes on goalkeeper system. On manual you can shoot how long you want. On semi-manual you target and the system does the job. On auto the system gives every targed a number. And according target type and size it uses an amount of bullets. And also according software. Because every goalkeeper type has a different software and depending on that it chooses the #bullets for use. |
|
| Author: | ALVAMA [ December 31st, 2010, 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour |
The Goalkeeper can be reloaded aboard under deck and that is much saver then walking on deck. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ December 31st, 2010, 7:31 pm ] | |
| Post subject: | Re: Crazy huge CGN du jour | |
Goalkeeper cant do 360 if it depents on guidance on board?
uhm mitch.... reread carefully.WTF you talking about? Goalkeeper has its own aerial search and tracking radars. When the ships radars are down exept data-handeling. And electricity. Then the goalkeeper can still be used!!! Aswell the srboc(super-rapid-bloom-off-chaff). Thats why it costs so much. And is so reliable. It is the only ciws on earth that can auto track and search and kill. While the whole ships crew is DEAD! (ofcourse it has to be activated before crew dies. And must be loaded otherwise the system is more dumb then a mouse) This is what i have learned. "the phalanx can't provide 360 degrees cover, while the goalkeeper can" now think what you just said..... |
||
| Author: | Mitchell van Os [ December 31st, 2010, 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Western CIWS discussions (split from crazy huge CGN) |
Ill show it when i get home. Bcs on a mobile i cant show it. You said after phalanx that gk can and then (exept if it depends on ships systems).... |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|