Talk:Goalkeeper CIWS

Reaction time

"The system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the engagement starting at a range of 1500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m."

At Mach 2, the missile is doing a mile in less than, what, 3 seconds? The total engagement range defined above is 1200 meters. Since a mile is ~1600 meters...

5.5 seconds requires the engagement to start much farther away, not including travel time of the CIWS rounds to target. (Mach 2 inbound for 5.5seconds at sea level travels ~4km.)

Either the quoted statement above is intended to express the irony of Goalkeeper's inability to initiate, engage, and terminate the target before detonation, or someone's making up numbers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.213.217.230 (talk • contribs) July 11, 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you may be misunderstanding the sentence. "Engagement starting at a range of 1500 m" means Goalkeeper starts firing bullets at the target at 1500 m. Prior to this it would have detected the target with the search antenna. Then tracked it with the search antenna, determined it to be a threat, then slewed the mount to position the tracking antenna and track the target with the track antenna. The engaging the target with bullets if required beginning at maximum range. According to this article the search antenna has a range of 30 km, if it takes 5.5 seconds to go from detect to kill all it has to do is detect the target outside of 4 or 5 km to engage (start firing) at 1.5 km. Dual Freq 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The 1500m starting engagement range isn't strictly true either. The system does not begin to fire when the threat is at 1500m. The system will begin firing when it predicts the missile will be at the 1500m point at the same time that he bullets it fires will be. That is, it attempts to converge the bullets and the missile at the 1500m point. It takes a bullet a little more than 1.5 seconds to reach there, so a mach 2 missile will be at about 2700m when the weapon begins to fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfitzner (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article states "The system's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile like the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn" but the SS-N-22_Sunburn page states "SS-N-22 Sunburn is the NATO reporting name for two unrelated Soviet anti-ship missiles ... the Raduga P-270 Moskit ... has a top speed of Mach 3". Lopifalko (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the person(s) who wrote that statement meant the Moskit, which is the Mach 2.5 Sea-skimmer. As for the statement, I to, believe it is false. The Goalkeeper starts firing at a range of 1.5 kilometers. The Moskit travels at Mach 2.5, or 0.85 kilometers per second. The Goalkeeper would have less than 2 seconds to engage and destroy the Moskit before impact. To add to that, the Moskit is also allegedly capable of doing maneuvers, such as zig zags, which would make destroying it very difficult. All in all, a citation is needed. Victory in Germany (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

Phalanx has a search antenna and track antenna just like Goalkeeper. The search antenna also tracks targets and Phalanx prioritizes those targets and slews the mount to use the tracking antenna to track and engage the target if required. Sounds very similar to what is described here for Goalkeeper, how is goalkeeper different in this respect? I don't know the number but Phalanx tracks things with the search antenna and will use the track antenna for more accurate data needed to engage the target. Dual Freq 22:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Appareantly the Phalanx tracks 2 targets, while the Goalkeeper tracks 18 targets.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fvdham (talk • contribs) 13:19, December 30, 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for a citation. [1] says goalkeeper can track 30 targets. [2] says Phalanx prioritizes its first 6 targets. The only difference I can see is that Phalanx's search antenna moves with the entire mount and might prevent searching when the mount is pointed at extreme angles. The search antenna tracks targets and Phalanx prioritizes those targets and slews the mount to use the tracking antenna to track and engage the target if required. I don't know where the 2 target number is coming from, but as far as Phalanx number of tracks, I don't think anyone will find an unclassified number to cite. If it only tracked 1 target it wouldn't need to prioritize 1 target. It can track numerous targets with the search antenna, just like any other 2D air search radar tracks targets. Just like the 2D primary radar tracks targets at your local airport. We need a citation for the 18 number and the 1 number, otherwise I'd say it can be removed and replaced with something like: Phalanx's search antenna moves with the entire mount while Goalkeeper's is fixed providing enhanced target detection while an engagement is in progress. --Dual Freq 14:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the above (sorry cant find sources but think this was covered by an issue of Janes) is that Phalanx has only one radar transmitter/receiver while the Goalkeeper has two. In the case of the Phalanx it is coupled to either the search radar or the tracking radar but not both. By having only one rather than two it reduces the size and cost of the system. What happens is that the Phalanx first runs with the transmitter switched to the search subsystem. It builds up a threat picture and prioritizes targets. When an engagement is commanded the transmitter/receiver is switch to the tracking subsystem and engages the target. When the engagement is complete the transmitter/receiver is switched back to the search subsystem and the system must rebuild the picture to decide which target should be engaged next. This ofcourse takes time, to much time for some people. The Goalkeeper has both a search and a tracking radar. Both are on all the time so that while the system is engaging a target the search radar is keeping the air picture up to date and the system is deciding which target it will engage next. Hence there is no delay between switching to the next target.

--Rbaal 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that certainly makes sense, based on your statement and another google search I agree with that assessment about the limitations of a single TX/RX system.[3] The statement in the article: "Phalanx can only track and engage one target at a time, while Goalkeeper can track 18 targets and switch to engage the greatest threat." still seems misleading. --Dual Freq 02:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking of citations, I notice in the comparative section that the Phalnax system is given a much longer range. Given the weapons the two systems use and their repective capabilities in their airborne forms i have to question if the figures have not become swapped. Or if they are indeed accurrate, why the Phalnax System would have a greater range, (the most obvious reason i can think of if the later is true being that Phalnax is programmed to begin engaging at a greater range, where it has a lower probability of sucsess, while the Goalkeeper wait till a high probability of sucsess range to avoid wasting ammo). Eitheir way some form of checking wseems in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.180.192 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Croatia?

No current Croatian ship has Goalkeeper. Are some planned? Chwyatt (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Price

I removed the cost per unit, there were two which had a big difference between them. On Gernan wiki there was a third price tag, so please only put it back with a reliable source added. Thank you. Your encyclopedia should be verified better before adding figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.61.161.171 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to Modern CIWS

This table is not only terribly inaccurate, it also differs from the one on the Phalanx CIWS page & that of the AK-360.

I propose to either make it accurate & consistent, or remove it altogether. I'm leaning towards the latter.

No one can convince me the M61 Vulcan 6 barreled 20mm has better range & RPM than the GAU-8 Avenger 7 barreled 30mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.80.147 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AK-630M1-2 entry

Why is the AK-630M1-2 listed when the AK--630 is already there? If the AK-630M1-2 system is 2 x AK-630 units, the firing rate should be listed as 2 x 5,000 rpm and not 10,000 rpm. The numbers are confusing. Adeptitus (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

comparison chart

chart shows Phalanx range as 3600m, should read 3600 ft Bigbeardedguy (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goalkeeper CIWS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218091832/http://www.kitsune.addr.com/LCF/goalkeeper.html to http://kitsune.addr.com/LCF/goalkeeper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927131303/http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/238/5370664f-6491-432d-af18-aee6860f114a.pdf?LangType=2057 to http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/238/5370664f-6491-432d-af18-aee6860f114a.pdf?LangType=2057

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)