1. You claim Goalkeeper, firing the larger 30x173 ammunition has half the range of Phalanx firing the 20x102 round. I am curious how you arrived at that.
Here we go once gain. You really do not understand the weapons, or how they operate, so you are simply challenging because you do not want to accept facts. Well, ok. Let me educate you then.
It is what is known as the "Flat Trajectory Range". When you are firing like this, you do not want your rounds operating in a ballistic fashion, but in a flat trajectory. And the Phalanx has a flat trajectory range of 3,600 meters.
The Goalkeeper only has a flat trajectory range of 2,000 meters. That is a 1.6 km difference. Now granted, the larger round will do more damage when it hits, but it can not be fired as soon because of the ballistics of the round involved.
This has nothing to do with the actual "range" of the weapon, but the range in which the rounds travel in a straight line. The 30mm round itself has a longer range then the 20mm.
But not in the way you want in a CIWS system.
Make more sense now? Most weapons systems have the ballistic path in mind, and use it to their advantage (as in plunging fire into dead zones). This is something you do
not want in a CIWS, and a lighter and smaller round is more advantageous.
2. You have claimed Phalanx has been used in "hundreds of successful intercepts in combat." My count is zero. Please enlighten me as to the difference in our figures.
I need to enlighten you, because you are unable to do research. But here, let me school you in.
Watch this video from Iraq, ok?
Here is another:
And another from Afghanistan:
I present to you the Centurion C-RAM system. Basically a Navy Phalanx pulled off of a ship and placed on a trailer. This have been used Thousands of times successfully, and have shot down as it's name states, "Rockets, Artillery and Mortars". And yes, the British use this exact same system from the US, they have not made their own copies with the Goalkeeper.
And as an FYI, most artillery comes in at right around 350 meters per second (just over MACH 1), has no rocket plume, and is significantly smaller then a missile like the EXOCET. So do not even try to tell me that these are easier to hit, they are significantly harder, the only advantage is that the trajectory brings them higher so they can fire at the target at a greater distance.
It is no crime to say that a piece of hardware, intended as a short-term, stop-gap solution and conceived nearly 4 decades ago has done its job and now it is time to move forward. The U.S. Navy clearly has. I honestly don't understand what you are getting so worked up about.
So far as how to measure real combat power in a modern warship, that is probably a good subject for its own thread. We are already off-topic enough with the Phalanx derail.
But the PHALANX in use today is not the same PHALANX that was introduced over 35 years ago. That is your biggest mistake.
Phalanx Block 0 production started in 1978 with orders for 23 USN and 14 Foreign Military Sales (FMS) systems.
Phalanx Block 1 saw service introduction in 1988. Block 1 baseline 0 upgrades included a larger magazine (1,500 rounds), a multiple pulse repetition frequency search radar, an expanded radar search envelope to counter diving targets as well as reliability and maintainability improvements. Block 1 was also able to engage targets diving at steeper angles than Block 0 could handle. Block 1 replaced the 2-D scanning antenna of Block 0 with a four-plate back-to-back antenna that continuously searches from the horizon up to the vertical. The cease-fire protocol was changed to match the burst length to the type of target being engaged, thus conserving ammunition and allowing a greater number of targets to be engaged. In automatic control, the gun will prioritize the first six threats it sees at about 10,000 yards (9,100 m) and engage at 4,000 yards (3,600 m).
Block 1 baseline 1 replaced the hydraulic gun drive with a pneumatic (air-driven) gun drive system that increased the rate of fire to 4,500 rounds per minute. Search radar sensitivity was also improved in this upgrade. Block 1 baseline 2 introduced further reliability upgrades along with a muzzle restraint to decrease dispersion. As installed on multiple non-Aegis and Aegis ships, neither the original Phalanx Block 0 nor the subsequent Block 1 baseline 0, 1, or 2 upgrades were integrated with a ship self-defense system.
The Phalanx Block 1A incorporated a high-order language computer in order to better process engagement algorithms and provided improved performance against maneuvering targets. Block 1A also provided for basic integration with the Ship Self Defense System and enabled RAM missile engagement through the Phalanx detection and track function.
Block 1B improvements include Optimized Gun Barrels (OGB) and a new integrated forward looking infrared system (FLIR). The OGB are electrically controlled, pneumatically driven and fire a new Enhanced Lethality Cartridge (ELC). The Phalanx FLIR provides increased capability to search, track and engage coastal warfare threats as well as provide better anti-ship missile defense. Phalanx Block 1B saw service evaluation in 1999 aboard USS Underwood (FFG-36) and was first operationally installed on USS Taylor (FFG-50) in September 2000.
USA 20 mm Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS)
See what I mean when I say that the Phalanx in use today is not the same thing? The gun barrels themselves are about the only thing left. The original models were really pretty crude, and in keeping with the capabilities of the time. Today, it is a fully integrated and modern system, that even connects to the powerful AEGIS combat system. They are faster, have much more powerful computers, more powerful RADARs, and are as advanced as a 1978 Toyota Corolla is from a 2014 Toyota Prius.
This is why you fail. You only have a crude understanding at best of these weapons, how they operate, and how they have changed over the decades. Hell, this should be obvious in that it has picked up over 1,100 pounds of weight since it first entered service.
And the Royal Navy, it does use Phalanx CIWS. The Type 45 Destroyers, Phalanx. The HMS Ocean amphibious assault ship, Phalanx. The Albion class amphibious transport dock, Goalkeeper.
And yes, I have to agree about this being pointless though. Once again you jump into a military topic, without any real understanding of what you are claiming. You make baseless statements, not really understanding what you are saying. And then insist that you are right, even though you really have no concept what it is you are saying. You confuse sustainability with combat power, confuse caliber of round with it's trajectory, and do not even know that Phalanx has been in combat for years.
So the solution is to remove the DDG 1000 secondary 57 MM gun armament and replacing it with a 30 MM chain gun ? :lamo
