HMS Queen Elizabeth

[98elise]

Speculatore said:

From an operators perspective Goalkeeper has a few advantages over Phalanx.

30mm over 20mm
7 independent barrels so the gun keeps firing even after a barrel Jam over gun ceases to function if one barrel jams
Can be reloaded from inside the citadel
Provides a separate radar picture in the ops room with TV so can be aimed and fired manually - Great fun in surface mode

I'm not sure that the barrel size has any advantage. Phanalx fires APDS rounds (or did in my day) so the actual projectile is smaller than 20mm. You want a heavy small diameter projectile to get the best chance of taking out a missile.

Certainly Goalkeeper is a better overall option, but that comes with it being more of an integrated system.

The modular nature of Phalanx means that pretty much everything you need is at/on the mount (apart from a small control panel). The only things it needs from the ship is water and power.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 7th February 12:17

[98elise]

Tired said:

98elise said:

Europa1 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Always wondered why Ark had Phalanx and the other 2 CVSs had Goalkeeper.

What is the difference?

Apart from the obvious being that they are different CIWS systems, phalanx is very easy to retro fit. It's pretty much a self-contained bolt on plug and play system. Goalkeeper requires deck space below the mount so needs to be designed in or as a major refit.

It might be fairly self contained, but you can't just plonk it down on a piece of deck and bolt it down. There are very stringent stiffness and natural frequency requirements for the supporting structure. You're still going in under the deck to rip out some tiddly bulbs and put something substantial in there.

I was oversimplifying, however it's significantly less intrusive than goalkeeper. Goalkeeper needs about 3m of space below the desk.

And can be moved from ship to ship, or even be put on a trailer. The fact it's self contained means it's highly flexible and portable.

[Seight_Returns]

Does Phalanx not have a manual anti-surface mode ? Sure I've seen numerous videos of (mainly USN) Phalanx engaging surface targets.

[98elise]

Seight_Returns said:

Does Phalanx not have a manual anti-surface mode ? Sure I've seen numerous videos of (mainly USN) Phalanx engaging surface targets.

It wasn't originally designed to, but was added in later versions.

[hidetheelephants]

98elise said:

Europa1 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Always wondered why Ark had Phalanx and the other 2 CVSs had Goalkeeper.

What is the difference?

Apart from the obvious being that they are different CIWS systems, phalanx is very easy to retro fit. It's pretty much a self-contained bolt on plug and play system. Goalkeeper requires deck space below the mount so needs to be designed in or as a major refit.

There's also weight and balance; less important with carriers but a big issue with smaller warships, as topweight and what it gets used for is a major cause of strife in the design process; a Phalanx unit is about 5 tonnes whereas Goalkeeper is several times that. Plus there's the RN perennial of Phalanx being portable, so it can be unbolted from units that are in refit/tied up with broken things and bolted to other vessels.

[98elise]

hidetheelephants said:

98elise said:

Europa1 said:

Seight_Returns said:

Always wondered why Ark had Phalanx and the other 2 CVSs had Goalkeeper.

What is the difference?

Apart from the obvious being that they are different CIWS systems, phalanx is very easy to retro fit. It's pretty much a self-contained bolt on plug and play system. Goalkeeper requires deck space below the mount so needs to be designed in or as a major refit.

There's also weight and balance; less important with carriers but a big issue with smaller warships, as topweight and what it gets used for is a major cause of strife in the design process; a Phalanx unit is about 5 tonnes whereas Goalkeeper is several times that. Plus there's the RN perennial of Phalanx being portable, so it can be unbolted from units that are in refit/tied up with broken things and bolted to other vessels.

Makes it easier to fix as well. We had a mount badly damaged in very very tough seas. Back in port it was uncoupled and lifted off, and a replacement bolted on.

Ex Navy mounts have also been put into the back of trucks as a land based defence system (C-RAM)

Edited by 98elise on Friday 8th February 07:56

[Cold]

Noisy equipment to one side for a moment, over the past week or so there has been talk of potentially building a QE sized dry dock at Portsmouth Harbour at some point in the future.
No idea where it would actually go unless an existing dock is modified nor was there any clarification of where the funding for such a project might come from.
Interesting idea though.

[hidetheelephants]

Cold said:

Noisy equipment to one side for a moment, over the past week or so there has been talk of potentially building a QE sized dry dock at Portsmouth Harbour at some point in the future.
No idea where it would actually go unless an existing dock is modified nor was there any clarification of where the funding for such a project might come from.
Interesting idea though.

Why would the government waste money duplicating a facility which already exists in Rosyth, Greenock and Belfast? I don't think the Inchgreen dock has seen any business since the Maersk container ships that were laid up during the GFC were given a bottom scrub before going back to work.

[Ayahuasca]

I believe that one of the reasons that the flight deck on carriers is angled is to compensate for the Coriolis effect. If the carrier’s course has much of a north-south component this effect can be significant and can lead to skewed takeoffs / landings. I read that Eric Winkle-Brown insisted that RN carriers only steam East - West or West - East when he tested particularly high performance aircraft.

[Seight_Returns]

hidetheelephants said:

Why would the government waste money duplicating a facility which already exists in Rosyth, Greenock and Belfast? .

Because it's worried it will lose access to these facilities in the event of the breakup of the United Kingdom.

Something that's unfortunately a distinct possibility within the planned lifetime of QE and PoW.

Edited by Seight_Returns on Friday 8th February 08:10

[Cold]

Seight_Returns said:

hidetheelephants said:

Why would the government waste money duplicating a facility which already exists in Rosyth, Greenock and Belfast? .

Because it's worried it will lose access to these facilities in the event of the breakup of the United Kingdom.

Something that's unfortunately a distinct possibility within the planned lifetime of QE and PoW.

Looks like it's Number 2 Basin that's being studied for feasibility.

Link to local rag

[AshVX220]

98elise said:

Cold said:

Still being tinkered with while alongside at PMH. Today saw the first of three Phalanx-1B guns glued into place. Phalanx-1B is a 20mm rapid fire radar and electro-optical guided gun that can chuck out rounds at a rate of 4500 per minute at anti-ship missiles and surface targets.





Picture credit: InShOt.

I was the Phalanx Engineer on Ark Royal for a few years

My "off-watch" action station on Gloucester was a Phalanx loader, such a cool piece of kit and my favourite weapon to see fired.

[thismonkeyhere]

Ayahuasca said:

I believe that one of the reasons that the flight deck on carriers is angled is to compensate for the Coriolis effect. If the carrier’s course has much of a north-south component this effect can be significant and can lead to skewed takeoffs / landings. I read that Eric Winkle-Brown insisted that RN carriers only steam East - West or West - East when he tested particularly high performance aircraft.

[98elise]

AshVX220 said:

98elise said:

Cold said:

Still being tinkered with while alongside at PMH. Today saw the first of three Phalanx-1B guns glued into place. Phalanx-1B is a 20mm rapid fire radar and electro-optical guided gun that can chuck out rounds at a rate of 4500 per minute at anti-ship missiles and surface targets.





Picture credit: InShOt.

I was the Phalanx Engineer on Ark Royal for a few years

My "off-watch" action station on Gloucester was a Phalanx loader, such a cool piece of kit and my favourite weapon to see fired.

Its epic to watch. I was responsible for removing and refiting certain safety mechanisms, so was often stood next to it during a live firing.

30 years later I'm sat at a desk all day typing software specifications....what went wrong?

Edited by 98elise on Monday 11th February 17:29

[AshVX220]

98elise said:

Its epic to watch. I was responsible from removing and refiting certain safety mechanisms, so was often stood next to it during a live firing.

30 years later I'm sat at a desk all day typing software specifications....what went wrong?

We got old mate, that's all it is.

[Cold]

Back out to sea tomorrow (Monday 1st). After a couple of months of having stuff bolted on, she's off on a short trip up north returning to Rosyth to the dry dock for some post-shakedown fettling of the wet bits.

She leaves at 10:30AM if you fancy popping down to wave or something.

[shed driver]

Slightly off topic - but relevant to the CIWS bits.

HMS Victorious (WW2 carrier) went to the US and had all sorts of AA weapons attached which all had to be burned off her as she was too big to go through the Panama Canal en route to the Pacific Fleet where she became USS Robin. It was refitted once in the Pacific.

I'll try to dig out the audio of the old CO of the ship telling the story.

SD.

[anonymous-user]

Cold said:

Back out to sea tomorrow (Monday 1st). After a couple of months of having stuff bolted on, she's off on a short trip up north returning to Rosyth to the dry dock for some post-shakedown fettling of the wet bits.

She leaves at 10:30AM if you fancy popping down to wave or something.

Are there issues with clearance under the forth road bridge and will this be the first time both carriers have been together?

[Halmyre]

El stovey said:

Cold said:

Back out to sea tomorrow (Monday 1st). After a couple of months of having stuff bolted on, she's off on a short trip up north returning to Rosyth to the dry dock for some post-shakedown fettling of the wet bits.

She leaves at 10:30AM if you fancy popping down to wave or something.

Are there issues with clearance under the forth road bridge and will this be the first time both carriers have been together?

The sticky-up bit folds down so it can get under the Forth Road Bridge, which is a couple of metres lower than the rail bridge. I think when QE departed, PoW was still being bolted together.

I've just checked, QE departed in June 2017 and PoW was floated out in December that year.

[anonymous-user]

Halmyre said:

The sticky-up bit folds down so it can get under the Forth Road Bridge, which is a couple of metres lower than the rail bridge. I think when QE departed, PoW was still being bolted together.

I've just checked, QE departed in June 2017 and PoW was floated out in December that year.

Thanks. I seem to remember QE heading out at night and maybe low tide? I couldn’t remember if it was fully finished (height wise) or not at the time.

Will be great to see them together and maybe some photos of the QE going under the bridge.

These carriers are fantastic, the kind of thing that inspires young people to join the Navy.