Sensors or firepower in close-in defense?

How do AK-630 and Dardo compare with Phalanx and Goalkeeper, and why did Britain move away from Goalkeeper?

All can be effective, but NATO emphasizes earlier sensing and precision while Russian systems favor denser fire; Britain also judged Goalkeeper's upgrade path weaker than Phalanx's.

The comparison turns on distance, warning time, and force. If a sensor network detects a threat early, a navy can expect a smaller and more precise weapon to finish the engagement. If warning is late or decisions are slower, heavier firepower offers more tolerance for error. Systems such as the Dardo twin 40 mm and AK-630 therefore cannot be judged apart from the doctrine and sensors around them. Britain's move away from Goalkeeper is attributed to its weaker upgrade history compared with Phalanx, although Britain did not invest fully in those Phalanx upgrades either. Western moves toward Type 31's 40 mm guns and other larger close-in systems suggest a gradual effort to restore more terminal firepower.