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.

Nothing to do with Dutch sensibilities: one does need to compare apples to apples. It is important to try and establish what is and is not included in weights given in open sources. The control console is one thing. Inclusion of optional IR tracking equipment is another, as I indicated. Inclusion of a dedicated power supply or a cooling system may be another (see Phalanx example below). Another example are some french uses of the same 30mm gatling gunmount: SAMOS and SATAN do not have radars on the mount like Goalkeeper does yet these items are – or should be! – counted as part of system weight).

AFAIK, the convention is that the weight of the mount includes the part immediately below deck that is an integral part of the mount (usually that’s the reloading mechanism and ready magazine).

Nowhere have I indicated in any way that Goalkeeper is light. It is not a concidence I also gave weights for Oto 76mm and Bofors 57mm. You suggested the 3,5 ton ‘off mount’ weight for Goalkeeper is high up: I put it to you that it is low down or at least lower down than the mount. As for heavier and bulkier, see here. The important difference with Phalanx is however that Goalkeeper requires deck penetration or, to avoid deck penetration, some sort of containerization or hull build-up (see e.g. ex RNthN Zuiderkruis).

Here’s an interesting puzzle about Phalanx and system weight:

Shipmounted Phalanx
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_ciws_datash.pdf
Wieght=14500 lb = 6577.1 kilogram

Trailermounted Phalanx
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_datasheet.pdf
Weight=53000 lbs = 24040.4 kilogram

“In the land-based configuration, a Phalanx Block 1B is mounted on a wheeled platform, which provides both a stable site and mobility to allow for repositioning. The Centurion™ Weapon System is powered by a generator and has a water chiller cooling system and an enclosed control station.”

So, the 38500 lbs / 17463.3 kg weight difference between land and sea based Phalanx therefor stems from:
– the trailer
– the (enclosed) control station
– the power generator
– the cooling system

Also consider this:

Phalanx Mount/Turret Data
Weight Early models: 12,500 pounds (5,625 kg)
Later models: 13,600 pounds (6,120 kg)

1) Weight of Block 0 was split 12,000 lbs. (5,443 kg) above deck and 466 lbs. (211 kg) below.
2) Standard manning of early mountings was three enlisted men. Later versions may have only a single crewman at a monitoring station, but do require at least two additional personnel in order to change out the ammunition cassettes.
3) The mounting train and elevation motors are electrically driven and the system requires 440 Vac 60 Hz line power. Block 1B consumes 18 KW while in search mode and 70 KW while in track mode.
4) Search radar is Ku-Band, Digital MTI while the track radar is Ku-Band, Pulse Doppler Mono-pulse.
5) Although the gun barrels are air-cooled, the electronics require a sea-water cooling system that is rated at 20 gpm, 30 psig (30 lpm, 2 kg/cm2). 6) Acceleration for Block 1B in both Elevation and Train is 8 rad/sec2.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.htm

1+2 > i.e. below deck monitoring station; 3 > power supply; 5 > cooling system

Next, consider SeaRAM, in which:
“an 11-missile round RAM launcher assembly, loaded with RAM guided missiles, replaces Phalanx’s 20 mm gun….
SeaRAM fits the exact shipboard installation footprint of the Phalanx, uses the same power and requires minimal shipboard modification….
The SeaRAM system is a complete and autonomous weapon system with its own sensor suite, combat system and weapon. Like the Phalanx, only power and cooling water are required from the ship….
Below decks, the SeaRAM system uses the same control panel and consoles that are deployed as part of Phalanx 1B upgrade; thus, no changes in equipment space or footprint are required. The local and remote consoles provide the operator with video images from the FLIR for threat detection and track.”
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_searam_datasheet.pdf

According to manufacturer information:
SeaRAM =
Above-Deck Weight: 15,520 lb (including missile rounds)
Below-Deck Weight: 1,575 lb
> Total 17095 lb

Difference with Phalanx = 17095-14500 = 2595 lb (= 1177.1 kilogram)
Of which 1,575 lb are 2 off mount consoles and the remainder of 1020lb / 462.7 kg is on the mount.

In conclusion:
– The 14500lb/6577kg weight quoted for Phalanx does not include 1575 lb/714.4kg for 2 off mount consoles. If added Phalanx comes out to 16075lb / 7291.4 kg.
– Not counted in either Phalanx or SeaRAM system weight are (required) power generator and water cooling system. How do you know such or similar items are not counted also in Goalkeeper system weight?

ps: note off-mount IRSCAN installation on seperate mast in one of pics below.

MODERN NAVAL AA GUN AMMUNITION (1) + (2)

From the excellent website of Tony Williams
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm

20×102

This American cartridge is probably the most widely used 20mm round in service today, due to the fact that it is chambered in the M61 (Vulcan) “gatling” rotary cannon fitted to US fighters, the naval Phalanx close-in weapon system, and some AA vehicles. It is also chambered in the US M39 revolver cannon (as fitted to many 1950s USAF fighters, and still used in the F-5), the current French GIAT 20M621, and the Czech ZPL-20, a version of the Russian 23mm GSh-23 twin-barrel aircraft gun rechambered for the NATO round. The history of this cartridge goes back to WW2 when a very powerful .60 inch anti-tank rifle was developed. This never saw service but the 15.2×114 ammunition was used in various experimental aircraft guns developed during WW2, notably the T17 which was a modified Mauser MG 151. After the war the .60 cartridge remained the USAAF’s preferred basis for new aircraft guns, and the first versions of what became the M39 and the M61 were chambered for it. However, the advantages of explosive shells were finally accepted by the USAF and the case was necked out to 20mm and slightly shortened to keep the overall length the same. Many different loadings in several countries have been developed for this round, including APDS (for the Phalanx). The original USAF ammunition was the M50 series; this was largely replaced by the more streamlined, multi-purpose PGU-28/B from the late 1980s, but the older rounds have been reinstated because of concerns over premature explosions in the barrel. All versions of the 20×102 use electric priming.

20×102 ammo

PROJECTILE TYPE/WEIGHT (GM)
HE/101
APDS/100 (APDS is M149 Phalanx round).

RESPECTIVE MUZZLE VELOCITY (M/SEC)
1,030
1,100

RESPECTIVE MUZZLE ENERGY (JOULES)
53,600
60,500

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/an_introduction_to_collecting_20.htm

30×173

Another cartridge with a complicated history, this was developed by Oerlikon in the 1950/60s for their 304 RK aircraft revolver cannon, later renamed the KCA. This only saw service in some versions of the SAAB Viggen fighter, which is no longer in use, although it was also offered in the Hughes Model 34 gunpod. The KCA cartridge shown above is a drill round.

In the late 1960s the cartridge design was adopted for the American GAU-8/A 7-barrel rotary cannon, as fitted to the A-10 “tankbuster” plane and subsequently to the Goalkeeper naval CIWS. However, this differed from the KCA ammunition in three respects: the case material was changed from steel to light alloy, the priming from electric to percussion, and the driving bands from metal to plastic; as a result, the rounds are not interchangeable. Later still the GAU-8/A cartridge was adopted for the Mauser MK 30F cannon which is in wide use as an AA gun, and finally for the American Bushmaster II Chain Gun (renamed in its current, marinised, version as the MK44).

The most recent development by some manufacturers is a reversion to steel (but still percussion-primed) cases for the loadings specifically intended for AFV cannon, with the Mauser (now Rheinmetall) MK 30-2 being designed for these.

The 30×173 is now the most common Western cannon cartridge in this calibre, and is available in a wide variety of loadings, including APFSDS, from several different manufacturers. However, both the KCA and the latest AFV steel-cased rounds are hard for collectors to find, as is the GAU-8/A’s notorious PGU-14/B API with a depleted uranium core (distinguished by a black and red projectile). Most cartridges available are of the alloy-cased TP type, with blue projectiles. The cartridge shown above is the Missile Piercing Discarding Sabot for use with the Goalkeeper CIWS.

30×173 ammo

PROJECTILE TYPE/WEIGHT (GM)
HE/360 (High Explosive)
API/425 (Armor Piercing Incendiary)
FMPDS/234 (Frangible Missile Piercing Discarting Sabot)
HEI/360 (High Explosive Incendiary)
FAPDS/202 (Frangible Armor Piercing Discarting Sabot)
APDS/225 (Armor Piercing Discarting Sabot)

RESPECTIVE MUZZLE VELOCITY (M/SEC)
1,080
988
1,150
1,040
1,300
1,225

RESPECTIVE MUZZLE ENERGY (JOULES)
210,000
207,000
155,000
195,000
171,000
168,800

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30mm%20cannon.htm

THE ANTI-MISSILE GUNS

The rapid acquisition of a range of CIWS guns during and after 1982 had all the appearance of an act of panic! While there was no doubt a strong feeling of urgency, and the speed with which the MoD’s normal procurement process was short-circuited was admirable, the purchases were sensible and practical. They were of two quite different types, to meet two very different threats.

The most spectacular threat was that of the anti-shipping missile, specifically Exocet. It now seems quite incredible that pre-Seawolf RN ships were so poorly defended against this type of attack, apart from passive decoys, when it had long been known to be possessed by many small navies as well as being the main weapon of the Russian Navy. Manually-aimed systems, whether guns or missiles, are quite useless against such devices. Some form of fully-automatic system, able to detect, aim and fire within seconds, without human intervention and with precise accuracy, is essential. Seawolf fulfils that role admirably for ships fortunate enough to be so equipped. In 1982, the only proven alternative was an American gun system, Phalanx, nine of which were promptly ordered to equip the Invincible class carriers and provide some training.

Phalanx is based around a very sophisticated radar and fire control computer, which is capable not only of tracking incoming missiles and firing the gun as soon as it is in range, but of detecting and computing the course of its own bullets and correcting the aim accordingly (a “closed loop” system). The gun used is the six-barrelled 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon originally designed for equipping fighter aircraft. In that form, it is capable of firing at an astonishing 6,000 rounds per minute, although it is derated to 3,000 rpm for the Phalanx application (increased to 4,500 rpm in later versions).

Another difference is the type of ammunition; in common with other anti-missile guns Phalanx does not fire the usual full–calibre explosive shells but instead APDS (armour-piercing discarding sabot) rounds, small solid high velocity (1,100 m/sec) bullets of 12.5mm calibre contained in a light sleeve which falls away as it leaves the muzzle. The reason for this choice of projectile (which is actually less effective against aircraft) is that while larger guns and AA missiles can knock down anti-ship missiles at a distance by blowing away their wings and controls with proximity-fuzed explosive warheads, once the missiles get within 6-700 metres of the ship, their ballistic momentum is likely to carry them to the target even if they are damaged. Phalanx bullets are therefore intended to penetrate and explode the missile’s warhead. Even so, a typical 200kg RDX warhead has to be exploded at least 150 metres from the ship to avoid blast damage.

The Phalanx mounting weighs about 6,000kg and contains ammunition for nearly 20 seconds firing; this is enough for several engagements as the gun fires in short bursts. The maximum range is about 1.5km. A significant advantage of the mount is that it requires no deck penetration and thus can be bolted in any convenient location, topweight considerations permitting.

A more powerful anti-missile CIWS operating on similar principles to Phalanx is the Dutch Goalkeeper system which the RN ordered in 1984 to supplement and partially replace Phalanx. This is based on the much more potent 30mm GAU-8/A rotary cannon, also developed for aircraft use, which fires at the higher rate of 4,200 rpm. The maximum range is 3km, although fire is normally opened at a closer range to avoid wasting ammunition, of which some 15 seconds worth is held on the mounting. It has considerably more “ship impact” than Phalanx, as the mounting penetrates two decks, and thus cannot easily be retrofitted to smaller vessels.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/RNCIWS.html

Goalkeeper is based on the General Dynamics (formerly Lockheed Martin/Martin Marietta’s Armament Systems unit in Burlington, VT) GAU-8/A 30 mm Gatling-type cannon in the EX-83 mount. The seven-barreled cannon has a firing rate of 4,200 rounds per minute; the mount holds 1,190 rounds in a ready storage belt. The standard round is an Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) type, with the penetrator made of a high-density tungsten alloy.

The weight and power requirements of the mount allow it to be installed on almost any ship. The system, fully mounted with a load of 1,190 rounds, weighs 7.42 tons. The power requirements for the system are 440 V 60 Hz 3-phase 46 kVA, 115 V 60 Hz 3-phase 2.5 kVA, and 115 V 400 Hz 3-phase 8.5 kVA. The design and construction of this equipment are in accordance with current NATO standards for shipboard equipment.

FMPDS. The Frangible Missile Piercing Discarding Sabot (FMPDS) was introduced for the Goalkeeper in 1994 to boost the effectiveness of the weapon in the new, enhanced anti-air/surface operating mode and in conjunction with new fire control algorithms. The FMPDS, like all discarding sabots, features a brittle penetrator that breaks up soon after it has penetrated the target’s surface and maximizes the impact on the interior components of the target. The penetrator is made of a tungsten alloy. It is believed that the Korean KDX class uses FMPDS ammunition side by side standard munitions.

http://www.hawk-france.com/uploads/shared/datahub/samples/N040/body.html

MK149 20mm Armor-Piercing, Discarding Sabot

The 20mm MK149 was developed with a significant anti-armor capability, optimized exterior ballistic performance and short time-of-flight. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems has produced in excess of 20,000,000 rounds of MK149 ammunition for the U.S. Navy’s Phalanx Anti-Ship Missile Defense System.

The US Navy has replaced the MK149-2 Phalanx round with a DU penetrator by the MK149-4 Phalanx round with a tungsten penetrator. In 1988 the Navy opted to transition the CIWS 20mm round from DU to tungsten. The Navy made the decision based on live fire tests that showed that tungsten met the Navy’s performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact. It should be noted that the “soft” targets the CIWS was designed to defeat -anti-ship missiles at close range – are far easier to destroy than “hard” targets like tanks. Substantial stocks of DU ammunition delivered prior to that date remain in the inventory.

The Alliant Techsystems Inc. MK149-4 Phalanx features a saboted tungsten subcaliber projectile with excellent antiship missile and antiarmor capabilities, as well as short time of flight to target. It is compatible with all 20mm M197 and M61 chain gun systems and Phalanx CIWS. In addition, it is effective in Vulcan Air Defense Systems.

In July 2000 the Department of the Army – Headquarters, Operations System Command, Rock Island, Ill., awarded Primex Technologies, Inc., base and option contracts totaling $3.8 million to produce 331,800 rounds of the 20mm MK149 Armor-Piercing, Discarding Sabot Cartridge as a Foreign Military Sale through the U.S. government. The 20mm MK149 ammunition is utilized in the Phalanx Gun System. Primex Technologies is the sole developer and a qualified producer of this round. Work will be performed at the company’s Marion, IL facility. Primex Technologies, Inc., a defense and aerospace company headquartered in St. Petersburg, Fla., maintains core businesses in munitions, propellants, satellite propulsion systems and electronic products.

Team: 20mm Ammunition
Height (max): 168mm
Weight: 253g
Number Produced: 3M+
Muzzle Velocity (nominal): 3700 f/s
Chamber Pressure (typical): 60,500 psi
Trace (typical): Untraced

http://www.patriotfiles.com/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=5754&page=1

Phalanx has 1,550 rounds stored on the mount.

Goalkeeper does indeed use a US gun. It being the shooter off of the mighty warthog (presumably the Dutch wanted anything it shot at to stay shot)

I wasn’t aware that the weight difference between Phalanx and Goalkeeper was so small.

My understanding is that Phalanx’ key benefit is its minimal deck penetration. I don’t honestly know how Goalkeeper compares.

There haven’t been the same horror stories of Goalkeeper deciding to engage the wrong targets as Phalanx but that MAY be because there are just so many more Phalanx units in use!

Al

GD not only makes the gun, but also the gunmount. minus the 2 Thales radars.

With ‘R2D2’ there is no deck penetration. With goalkeeper, there is:
“Height: 3.71 m (above deck) 6.2 m (including deck penetration).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper_CIWS
i.e. 1.67meters (less than 1 deck)

As for Goalkeeper Vs Phalanx one problem is size and weight. Goalkeeper is a massive system and expensive, hence T22B3 only having one.

Really?

Goalkeeper
Mount with Ammunition 14,018 Pounds (6,372 kg)
Off-Mount Equipment 7,766 Pounds (3,530 kg)
Total Weight 21,784 Pounds (9,902 kg)
http://www.gdatp.com/products/Gun_Systems/goalkeeper/Goalkeeper30mmClose-InShipDefenseSystem.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNNeth_30mm_Goalkeeper.htm

Phalanx
Weight 13,600 pounds (6,169 kg)
http://www.gdatp.com/Products/Gun_Systems/phalanx/Phalanx20mmClose-InShipDefenseSystem.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.htm
(unclear if this uncludes anything off-mount)

76 mm/62 (3″) Compact
76 mm/62 (3″) SR
76 mm/62 (3″) Mark 75
Compact (without ammunition): 16,400 lbs. (7,439 kg)
SR (without ammunition): 16,800 lbs. (7,620 kg)
Compact including ammunition and off-mount components: 18,783 lbs. (8,520 kg)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75.htm
(doubt this includes so much as a fraction of weights of external fire control and surveillance equipment)

57 mm/70 (2.25″) SAK Marks 1, 2 and 3
57 mm/70 (2.25″) Mark 110 Mod 0
Mark 1: N/A
Mark 2: 14,300 lbs. (6,500 kg)
Mark 3: 16,535 lbs. (7,500 kg)
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123.htm
(unclear if this incudes off-mount equipment)

5″/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4
Mounting without lower hoist: 50,456 lbs. (22,886 kg) [est.]
Mounting with four-flight lower hoist: 54,398 lbs. (24,674 kg) [est.]

“The 11540 Project, embodied in The Yaroslav Mudry, is a further development of the Soviet 1135 Project”

:rolleyes: No it isn’t! At all!

“The Neustrashimy design dates from the mid-1970s. At that time, the planned production of Project 1135 (NATO codename Krivak) class SKRs was reaching its end and attention turned to producing the next generation SKR.
This was intended to be the definitive SKR design, rectifying the perceived limitations of the Project 1135. The Project 1135 SKR … had been interim design[s], hastily redesigned from hulls designed as anti-ship missile platforms. As such, they were deficient in seakeeping, internal volume, and command control facilities. The Project 1135 design also lacked a shipboard helicopter. A new generation of designs was produced, optimized for their particular roles. This new generation included … the Project 1154 Neustrashimy class. As the Neustrashimy design evolved, an increasing number of new and untried systems were incorporated. As an insurance policy against the failure of the advanced [project 11540] design, the Russian Navy prepared an upgraded version of the Project 1135, designated Project 1135P (NATO codename Krivak-III).” http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/ws/ws10997.doc

“Project 11540 escort ship entered service with the Russian Navy in 1993. The ship commissioning was preceded by a protracted period of research and development work.
Initially, the work was carried out by the Zelenodolsk Design and Development Bureau as part of the Project 1154 small antisubmarine ship (L.F. Fedoseev was the chief designer). According to Navy design and operation requirements (1972) and its role as a development of the Project 1124 small antisubmarine ship [nato: Grisha], the new ship was supposed to displace about 800 tons and develop a speed of 35 knots.
At the design stage, the scope of missions the ship was assigned to perform gradually expanded. It was equipped with better armament, as more advanced weapon systems and equipment items were adopted and their nomenclature increased (new sonars, antisubmarine and antiship missile systems and, in the final ship development stage, an antisubmarine helicopter entered service). The introduction of new weapon systems increased the ship displacement. For example, in the approved conceptual design (1975) the standard displacement reached 1,500 tons and from that time ship was classed as an antisubmarine escort ship. In the detail design, which appeared in 1976, the displacement was 1,700 tons. In the altered detail design of 1979 it was about 2,000 tons, while ship displacement with a helicopter on board reached 2,500 tons. As a consequence, the full speed fell to 27 – 28 knots. From this point on the work was headed by N.A. Yakovlevsky, chief designer.
After seven years of work, the displacement of Project 1154 ship approached that of Project 1135 escort ship and the Naval authorities changed their opinion of the vessel.”
http://www.enemyforces.net/navy/1154.htm

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1326498&postcount=708
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1326829&postcount=717

Project 1135: Krivak I > Krivak II > Krivak III > Talwar/project 1135.6 > Project 22350

The fighter, developed by Taiwan’s government-owned Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC), is based on the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) being developed for the US Air Force, the China Times said.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_392521.html

Another article, pretty much the same information.

Sukhoi is also developing, again in competition with the MiG firm, the lightweight Su-54 fighter, an aircraft comparable to the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Sukhoi/Aero60.htm

the V-22 is not pressurised and so if you want it to get up to 25,000 foot and still be alive you better give them some oxygen.

Also its gonna be cold as ….

I would like to see them have a look at pressurising the v-22 but its a difficult process given its shape I believe.

How about pressurizing the cockpit only, and going for a system with downlink to ground station (i.e. no on board operators)?

Oh dose anyone know if RAM or SEA RAM have been mounted AOR or logistic vessels

AFAIK NO. SeaRAM is currently deployed only on LCS-2 Independence.