HMS Queen Elizabeth

[98elise]

Cobnapint said:

98elise said:

I'm an ex RN Weapons Engineer,where my principal role was Phalanx CIWS on carriers...so I have some knowledge.

Your opinions just sounded like they were based on zero knowledge so I thought I'd check.

Very good.

Just for interest, how much firing time do these things have. Are they limited by heat build up, ammo holding capabilities or what, if anything..?

For Phalanx you about 20 seconds before the magazine is empty. If you can't kill the target in 20 seconds then you are probably in a situation where unlimited rounds would not help (i.e you've been hit). They can of course be reloaded, so realistically you can be ready for a second wave in a few minutes.

Remember that CIWS is a last chance weapon. Its there to take out something close and heading directly at you after its got through all the other defensive layers.

Edited to add....

That's 20 seconds per mount (gun) so your maximum firing time is multiplied by the mounts.

Edited by 98elise on Friday 18th August 09:15

[wal 45]

98elise said:

As i said above the size of goalkeeper isn't so much of an issue when its part of the original design. If its retrofitted then phalanx is a no brainer.

In my day the Phalanx used APDS (Uranium) rounds so the barrel size did not equal the perpetrator size. "destructive oomph" is not just from round size, its also from weight.

Thank you, must have missed that on my Ordnance Control career course and subsequent decades maintaining and managing the maintenance/availability of RN weapon systems

[Cobnapint]

98elise said:

For Phalanx you about 20 seconds before the magazine is empty. If you can't kill the target in 20 seconds then you are probably in a situation where unlimited rounds would not help (i.e you've been hit). They can of course be reloaded, so realistically you can be ready for a second wave in a few minutes.

Remember that CIWS is a last chance weapon. Its there to take out something close and heading directly at you after its got through all the other defensive layers.

Edited to add....

That's 20 seconds per mount (gun) so your maximum firing time is multiplied by the mounts.

Blimey. 20 seconds! We're back to the days of Spitfire pilots having to go easy on the button.

I'd have thought they would have had an almost limitless supply from below decks. Looking at some of the loading videos on youtube, the fresh belts have to be man-handled on deck and wound in. Not good on a heavy sea in bad weather, I would have thought, let alone under fire in theatre.

[98elise]

wal 45 said:

98elise said:

As i said above the size of goalkeeper isn't so much of an issue when its part of the original design. If its retrofitted then phalanx is a no brainer.

In my day the Phalanx used APDS (Uranium) rounds so the barrel size did not equal the perpetrator size. "destructive oomph" is not just from round size, its also from weight.

Thank you, must have missed that on my Ordnance Control career course and subsequent decades maintaining and managing the maintenance/availability of RN weapon systems

I was also an OC!

[CrutyRammers]

Dog Star said:

On FB I've just "unfollowed" a load of stuff to do with the RN and the carriers and so on.

Instead of being proud of the acheivement and industry involved the number of ignorant and ill informed bile coming from so many people continually just wears me down. None stop stuff along the lines of....

- Britain is nothing, who do we think we are, we are a tiny insignificant nation with no military power

There are a large number of people who seem to take a perverse sort of satisfaction from thinking that the country is entirely without merit. A sort of extreme anti-patriotism. It's very odd.

[mikal83]

Dog Star said:

On FB I've just "unfollowed" a load of stuff to do with the RN and the carriers and so on.

Instead of being proud of the acheivement and industry involved the number of ignorant and ill informed bile coming from so many people continually just wears me down. None stop stuff along the lines of....
- no planes
- the planes are rubbish
- windows xp
- white elephant
- drone landing on it
- should have put the Harrier on it
- money should have been spent on the NHS (incindentally £3bn would last the NHS 10 days)
- people in Britain are starving/food banks
- Britain is nothing, who do we think we are, we are a tiny insignificant nation with no military power

It just goes on and on...
It's a bit like dealing with Apollo-hoax idiots, like having your brain turned to mush.

I despair.

You should try some farcebook sites with Naval themes and read some of the ste written by ex Matelots. Not a "real" carrier, back in my day, wheres the A/C etc etc......just fk off back to you potting shed FFS

[mikal83]

Cobnapint said:

98elise said:

For Phalanx you about 20 seconds before the magazine is empty. If you can't kill the target in 20 seconds then you are probably in a situation where unlimited rounds would not help (i.e you've been hit). They can of course be reloaded, so realistically you can be ready for a second wave in a few minutes.

Remember that CIWS is a last chance weapon. Its there to take out something close and heading directly at you after its got through all the other defensive layers.

Edited to add....

That's 20 seconds per mount (gun) so your maximum firing time is multiplied by the mounts.

Blimey. 20 seconds! We're back to the days of Spitfire pilots having to go easy on the button.

I'd have thought they would have had an almost limitless supply from below decks. Looking at some of the loading videos on youtube, the fresh belts have to be man-handled on deck and wound in. Not good on a heavy sea in bad weather, I would have thought, let alone under fire in theatre.

Give me strength..............

[Stickyfinger]

mikal83 said:

Dog Star said:

On FB I've just "unfollowed" a load of stuff to do with the RN and the carriers and so on.

Instead of being proud of the acheivement and industry involved the number of ignorant and ill informed bile coming from so many people continually just wears me down. None stop stuff along the lines of....
- no planes
- the planes are rubbish
- windows xp
- white elephant
- drone landing on it
- should have put the Harrier on it
- money should have been spent on the NHS (incindentally £3bn would last the NHS 10 days)
- people in Britain are starving/food banks
- Britain is nothing, who do we think we are, we are a tiny insignificant nation with no military power

It just goes on and on...
It's a bit like dealing with Apollo-hoax idiots, like having your brain turned to mush.

I despair.

You should try some farcebook sites with Naval themes and read some of the ste written by ex Matelots. Not a "real" carrier, back in my day, wheres the A/C etc etc......just fk off back to you potting shed FFS

But the Buccaneer was VERY cool

[Dog Star]

mikal83 said:

You should try some farcebook sites with Naval themes and read some of the ste written by ex Matelots. Not a "real" carrier, back in my day, wheres the A/C etc etc......just fk off back to you potting shed FFS

Those are the sites I'm on about.

There are three types....

- keyboard warriors with no RN connection (you could include me in this category, I guess)
- ex RN whingers
- lefties who hate the concept of the UK having such things as influence, carriers, anything really.

[Speculatore]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

I stand corrected. When I was at the launch of HMS Dragon it didn't have any. Good system to have. We had it on Cumberland and Chatham.

[Speculatore]

Cobnapint said:

Speculatore said:

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

What advantages does the Goalkeeper CIWS have over Phalanx?

Larger caliber round
7 barrel gun instead of 6
Gun continues to function even if a barrel gets jammed or fails
Provided a RADAR picture in the Ops Room
Can be reloaded from inside the citadel (NBCD)
Can be used in a directional 'Surface Mode' using the Ops Room RADAR

We had 3 x Goalkeeper mountings on Illustrious and Phalanx when I was on Invincible which were upgraded to Goalkeeper. We also had 1 x Goalkeeper onboard the two Batch III Type 22's that I served on. The general consensus from within the warfare department was that Goalkeeper was the preferred option.

Edited by Speculatore on Friday 18th August 11:02

Edited by Speculatore on Friday 18th August 11:08

[Cobnapint]

Speculatore said:

Cobnapint said:

Speculatore said:

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

What advantages does the Goalkeeper CIWS have over Phalanx?

Larger caliber round
7 barrel gun instead of 6
Gun continues to function even if a barrel gets jammed or fails
Provided a RADAR picture in the Ops Room
Can be reloaded from inside the citadel (NBCD)
Can be used in a directional 'Surface Mode' using the Ops Room RADAR

We had 3 x Goalkeeper mountings on Illustrious and Phalanx when I was on Invincible. We also had 1 x Goalkeeper onboard the two Batch III Type 22's that I served on. The general consensus from within the warfare department was that Goalkeeper was the preferred option.

Interesting, thanks.

[RizzoTheRat]

Speculatore said:

I stand corrected. When I was at the launch of HMS Dragon it didn't have any. Good system to have. We had it on Cumberland and Chatham.

When Daring launched she didn't even have PAAMS, apparently they had a really good gym in a spare bay though

[FourWheelDrift]

Regarding Goalkeeper CIWS none of the RN ships have it now anyway, Albion and Bulwark were the last and they have had it/having it replaced with Phalanx. All 4 of the type 22s that had it have been scrapped.

[Speculatore]

FourWheelDrift said:

Regarding Goalkeeper CIWS none of the RN ships have it now anyway, Albion and Bulwark were the last and they have had it/having it replaced with Phalanx. All 4 of the type 22s that had it have been scrapped.

The question was why I thought that Goalkeeper was a better system than Phalanx. We have retained Phalanx as it is an American system so spares etc are readily available.

From a Warfare perspective I would rather be behind a Goalkeeper system than Phalanx. (Having served on a few ships with both systems)

[SantaBarbara]

Speculatore said:

This works well and is very effective. When I was the Executive warrant Officer onboard Illustrious we embarked 16 USMC along with 250 US Marines as operators and deck crew. Once we got over the language barrier we had a very successful 2 weeks. This was followed some time later by embarking 6 Spanish harriers for a 10 day exercise and then a while later 6 Italian harriers.
The QE will be a very effective moving airfield capable of operating with a number of our NATO allies and capable of projecting airpower around the globe.

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

I was a MoD civilian in Liverpool (the City, not the ship of the same name) I think that we are to quick these days to sell de Commisioner ships to the breakers

If I was in charge at MB or the Citadel I would have a large Reserve fleet including Lusty and type 42s

[98elise]

SantaBarbara said:

Speculatore said:

This works well and is very effective. When I was the Executive warrant Officer onboard Illustrious we embarked 16 USMC along with 250 US Marines as operators and deck crew. Once we got over the language barrier we had a very successful 2 weeks. This was followed some time later by embarking 6 Spanish harriers for a 10 day exercise and then a while later 6 Italian harriers.
The QE will be a very effective moving airfield capable of operating with a number of our NATO allies and capable of projecting airpower around the globe.

That said, I do tend to agree that a more comprehensive protective screen would make more sense remembering that the initial order for the Type 45 was 13 and we ended up with 6. (And that the Type 45 does not have a surface to surface capability as we did with Exocet and Harpoon.
They should also stick with Goalkeeper as a point defense weapon rather than Phalanx as it is a much more capable system.

I was a MoD civilian in Liverpool (the City, not the ship of the same name) I think that we are to quick these days to sell de Commisioner ships to the breakers

If I was in charge at MB or the Citadel I would have a large Reserve fleet including Lusty and type 42s

The problem is who do you crew them with, and how do you keep the ships in working order. You have full time engineering departments (marine/weapons/air) keeping them going, and things break a lot. Imagine leaving a car for 12 months then trying to start it, now multiply that by 1000 times.

[Cold]

Internet chest thumping aside, this is pretty cool. Picture taken by Airbus UK (and owned by them) as they passed overhead.





To give you an idea of how high they were while sticking their smartphone out of the window, have a look at this:

[Ayahuasca]

I flew from New York down south on New Year's Day. The route takes you over the Norfolk Virginia US Navy base, looking out the window there seemed to be three or four Nimitz class carriers there. Got a photo but it is crappy. I guess they were home for Christmas.

[ninja-lewis]

98elise said:

One big advantage of Phalanx is the ability run entirely with no ship inputs (other then power and water) an no deck penetration. It can be moved from ship to ship relatively easily, and retrofitted. For a new ship that's not an advantage though, so would not have been part of the decision.[/quote Still advantage as it allows the Phalanx inventory to be managed as a fleet - whether recycling existing systems from decommissioned ships, taking them off ships in long term refit and reallocating to other vessels based on threat level, modifying for land C-RAM use or taking individual units out of service for upgrades.

Speculatore said:

Nanook said:

T45 does have Harpoon.

I stand corrected. When I was at the launch of HMS Dragon it didn't have any. Good system to have. We had it on Cumberland and Chatham.

The 4 sets of Harpoon quad launchers from the last 4 Type 22s were transferred to 4 Type 45s.