pjhydroSilly you indeed. Selective quotation!
That’s just a 203kg difference at the site of the mount. Any off-mount equipment of Goalkeeper is below deck, not on the top of a ship superstructure. And I’m not sure the weight quote for Phalanxs includes below any decks control console(s).
But much of Goalkeepers weight off mount is imediately below decks underneath the visible part, the fact Phalanx didn’t have a figure for that demonstrates its pretty much a contained unit- I think you put too much stock on how much a console in the command room weighs, its not 2 or three tons rest assured, more like a few kilos.
I realise it hurts your hollandish sensibilities to admitt that something from the USA is lighter and carries less weight, but i’m afraid Goalkeeper is just a great deal bigger, bulkier and heavier. Thats not to say Phalanx is a better weapon, just a smaller one.
pjhydroIf one wants to criticise el Tigre, it’s the location of the gun in the nose being a problem for sensors (vibrations, aggressive gas, electric effects) and night vision (muzzle flash). Same with the Mangusta. It might offer more crash safety, but that is bought at a quite high price.
I also think 30mm is an overkill. 20mm is just fine, even .50cal might work for most jobs in infantry support and against technicals.
Why on earth would you disadvantage the aircrew by giving them a smaller gun? A .5 would penetrate less armour/brick walls/wood etc etc, has slower rate of fire, lighter ammo so in terms of weight of shot on target in a given time your down. Effective range is similar but you put more rounds of greater weight and penetration on to a target…:confused:
By limiting your calibre to something for infantry jobs and technicals your making a the same mistake Eurocopter have made. Apache is popular because it is so versatile. It can sit in the “Fulda Gap” or it can chase insurgents. No different versions or variants. And what about sighting systems? Why would you not buy Apache-Longbow? Its so superior to Tigre as to be embarrasing, the only question is why on earth did the Ozzies buy tigre? The situational awarness difference created by Longbow is incredible.
pjhydroReally?
Goalkeeper
Total Weight 21,784 Pounds (9,902 kg)
Phalanx
Weight 13,600 pounds (6,169 kg)
Cor, and there was me thinking 3 tons was a large amount of extra weight on the top a ships superstructure…silly me…:confused:
That is a big weight difference! its 50% heavier than Phalanx, so for every two Goalkeepers you could have three phalanx at the same weight with less space used and nothing like the deck penetration.
pjhydroAs for Goalkeepers on USN vessels, probably not for the sole reason that they aren’t “Made in the USA.” On the other hand, license made copies made in the USA could be a possibility.
I am a HUGE fan of multitiered missile defence. Between the large arcs of fire and the mulitpile indepenant systems, it wouldn’t be too hard to build the perverbial “wall of lead” between the ship and the missile.
The major problem being conflict of signals and radiation as well as flight paths. You can only have so many missiles and lumps of tungsten in the air before they hit each other or guidance signals start interfering with each other, too much and your own defences cancel themselves out.
In the old gun-only days they were aimed mainly by sight and all the lead flew in straight lines in the same direction, not so with multiple VLS and radar guided CIWS.
As for Goalkeeper Vs Phalanx one problem is size and weight. Goalkeeper is a massive system and expensive, hence T22B3 only having one.
pjhydroHow accurate? Is the .ru relevant? Is it merely an exercise in western bashing? Is even thinking this an exercise in slav bashing?
I have no idea
Al
Careful Al, don’t awaken the bear, we don’t have enough of anything for another cold war.
pjhydroYou dont get away quite that easy PJ!. Busy yesterday and didnt have much opportunity for intense keyboard bashery!.
Wasn’t sure if I would be about myself for a couple of days, but i’ve managed to squeeze 5 mins in!
This was the point I was making…since T42 B1, surely the worst example of blatant treasury tinkering, the situation has improved measurably. Perhaps, partly, something of a post-Falklands honeymoon, but, we’ve not done all that bad in terms of capability in the fleet.
Yeah agreed if you put it like that. I think the thrust of my arguement has been the more recent cuts and how defence procurement has panned out since SDR.
I think you are missing the one fundamental point that will govern the range that weapons realease will be made under. The survival instincts of the pilots flying the strike!….
I would have said it depends on the Air Force and the cause. Can’t see (just for instance) Chinese pilots holding back. Agreed though PAAMs will be in the Anti-missile business, but still aiming to bring down launch aircraft. If we get CEC then all things are possible.
We had a CPOWEA at Collingwood who used to bang on about it as he was aware that BAE had an active-seeker Sea Dart and a VLS system in the works which could’ve done the area job and been at sea in the early 2000’s.
Actually I know quite a bit about that and it was first put on the table in the late 70s along with VLS SoggyDog but was deemed too expensive to even study particularly hard. It was brought up again in the same way SeaTyphoon (in regard to F35) was in order to gain some leverage at the workshare discussions.
Provided that is all they ever are and we dont get this idiocy reappearing of trying to turn them into an Arleigh Burke by bolting on SSM’s, serious NGS-capable artillery etc 8 would be more than sufficient. 6 isnt right, but, at least we will have a measure of capability to backstop the T45’s if CAMM delivers on its promises.
It will be fine as long as C1 and Astute are where the LAMs go and we don’t need more than one large battle group at sea….
pjhydroHMS Richmond 2030
HMS Somerset 2031
HMS Sutherland 2033
HMS Kent 2034
HMS Portland 2035
HMS St. Albans 2036
!!!! 😮
St Albans (such a naff name BTW) will be 36 years off her launch slip. Thats a long time for a design originally intended to have a shelf life of 15-20 years.
pjhydroI’m guessing that the conspiracy theorists (and they DID exist before the internet! Some of them were even in US congress) were quite happy to accept that the Japanese would attack British (or ‘British’ depending on one’s views) holdings in Asia at a time when Britain and her allies were struggling in the West but would not have been mental enough to pick a fight with an (at that time) unengaged USA.
Al
If you ever read the comic book Ministry of Space Winston bombs the yanks to get rocket technology- that i would believe before him being behind Pearl Harbour. That must come from the anti-British mob in spamland.
pjhydroTo the best of my knowledge, no.
However, F-35’s 360° IIR fusion picture (if gets projected on pilot’s visor), may well change this. Ok, it may not draw exact aircraft in 3D, but it may give positions and possibly vectors (depends on DASS hardware) and that’s more than enough.
But as Al said there is degredation, its never going to be as easy or good as eyeball and daylight so still no. Its possible to dogfight to a certain degree at night but its hard, dangerous and nowhere near daylight fights.
pjhydroWithout being rude is your sister of the “Its a spitfire/Tomcat/Easy jet-delete as appropriate” school of aircraft recognition?
If so there is a post in the USAF for her….
There was no Raptor in Northampton last weekend, or anywhere outside continental USA.
pjhydroI thought that it was criminal how little use was made of HMS Bristol. She was potentially a genuine cruiser but fitted out with the square root of naff all. Then a more learned chum led me gently through the work required to fit new/extra systems and the (very approximate) cost and I calmed down a bit. Even the drawing and structural calculations made me balk somewhat.
Yeah, 7,000 tons and a crew of 400 and she didn’t even have a whirrlybird. She didn’t have an SSM either (yeah I know Dart has a capability…but really) which for a 7,000 ton ship is shocking, until you look at the Type 45s…..
pjhydroYou can’t truly Dogfight at night, even with all the gubbins. The situational awareness available from mark one eyeball in daytime cannot be replicated by NVGs etc. Radar is mostly useless when your in a knife fight, ranges are too close and often targets are not in your radar cone.
pjhydroSwerve – OUCH!
Jonsey- Good debate, enjoyed it!
As for the new Coast Guard cutter, I have heard on the grapvine that it has all sorts of build quality and design issues that may have an impact on its planned lifetime. As an overall design it would fit into a similar sort of spec, but does need the venator adpatations to make it work for the RN how they want it.
pjhydroI am sure that you are correct.
The Royal Navy was the other big boy and thus potential threat. The Imperial Japanese Navy made up a lot of ground very quickly (partly due to their policy of asking anyone who beat them ‘could you show us how you did that?’)
When you see the terms and conditions which the US imposed on the UK for helping us in a war which we were on the same side in then you can see that the US agenda was very much for wrenching control of third parties away from the UK. (Whether this was due to a desire to end the evils of colonialism or to bolster the US powerbase I cannot say and I suspect that no one else here can either).
There is also the theory that Churchill ordered the attack on Pearl Harbour in order to drag the spams into WWII. (Largely on the grounds that the Japanese would have had to be truly stupid to have done it themselves)
Al
I assume he simultaneously asked them to attack Honk Kong and the malay Peninisular too? My old Grandad said he was a c**t but he wasn’t that bad…. 😀
pjhydroSteveo-
I’d still say a Mk8 is a bit OTT. 40mm is going to be the biggest thing you would fit to a C3 surely. In many ways this is a new type of ship. The C2 is the decendent of the Type 81/21 ships, and I think they loosely point to the sort of direction C2 will be headed, mid calibre gun, helo, some SSM, Light AA. Capable of standing in the line but in many respects a traditional frigate of old.
C3 on the other had is something a bit new, perhaps more akin to an old sloop or wartime corvette but really something not seen before. Global reach, oceanic capable but doing roles usually carried out by much smaller ships. It will have armament fit for close self-defence and constabulary duties but not much else, its tricks will be in the flexible kit you fit to it for MCM, SF, patrol, survey etc, not things that make a loud bang (unless they are clearnce charges!).
C1 is where the whizz bangs will be. To continue a 19th Century analogy the C1 will be the equivilant of the 74 gunner- fast, powerfully armed, the meat on the fleets bones. Daring/Astute/CVF make up your Line of battle, C1 backs that up with quantity, C2 is the eyes and ears able to stand alone if necessary while C3 is the presence and special duties vessels.
Sign In
