The latter. Needs to have as wide of a firing angle as possible (plus a greater degree of coverage overlap with the HHQ-10 that is covering the rear), apart from the need to avoid shooting at the bridge superstructure.
Last edited:
054B/new generation frigate
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
The latter. Needs to have as wide of a firing angle as possible (plus a greater degree of coverage overlap with the HHQ-10 that is covering the rear), apart from the need to avoid shooting at the bridge superstructure.
It really is a gorgeous looking frigate. Very clean lines except for the gun turret which seems out of date with the advent of modern anti-radar shaping.
On the topic of guns, I always wondered. Why don't we see more CIWS and other machine gun weapon systems around ships? Especially in the modern drone age, surely it's cheap to have overlapping weapons stations on ships for... well, C-UAS work for example.
Automated naval gun systems are anything but cheap.
So they tend to fly offboard when bean counters come to fit a ship into budget.
It can't be that expensive. A few million out of a total ship cost of $500 million plus? Seems foolish not to spend the money. Especially with how well naval drones have complicated Russia's operations in the Black Sea.
It can. Even pretty unsofisticated Aselsan SMASH costs 4.5 million.
| UNIT | COUNTRY OF ORIGIN | UNIT COST | PRODUCTION VALUE |
| Type 730 CIWS | China | US$10.00 mln | 0.25 |
| DARDO | Italy | US$20.00 mln | 0.25 |
| Goalkeeper CIWS | Netherlands | US$25.00 mln | 0.25 |
| AK-630 | Russia | US$9.00 mln | 0.25 |
| Kashtan CIWS | Russia | US$18.00 mln | 0.25 |
| Pantsir-M CIWS | Russia | US$20.00 mln | 0.50 |
| Denel 35mm Dual Purpose Gun | South Africa | US$17.50 mln | 0.25 |
| Oerlikon Millennium 35 mm Naval Revolver Gun System | Switzerland | US$10.00 mln | 0.25 |
| SeaRAM CIWS | United States | US$25.00 mln | 0.50 |
| Phalanx CIWS | United States | US$16.00 mln | 0.25 |
| RAM Block 1A CIWS | United States | US$30.00 mln | 0.25 |
lcloo
Captain
Other than the cost factor I think
1) Current ships built or under constructions inherited from the naval fighting doctrines of previous 20 or so years when drone threats were insignificant, or were not recognised as a serious threat.
2) CIWS were deployed as last line of defense against air threats thus not mounted in large numbers. Countries with large navy can always send out a flotilla that is able to form layer air defense from 200km to 2-5km with long/medium range SAMs and guns. (This is before drones showed their destructive power in Ukraine).
Recognition of drones threat came late but in near future we may see navies start to retrofit anti drone weapons and counter measures. CIWS is just one of these, others could be laser weapons, more small and medium guns with air burst proximity fuze shells (25mm to 76mm), and manpad/ micro size guided missiles as well.
Machines guns that has no proximity fuze are generlly ineffective against drones since they need a direct hit to shoot down a drone, unless they are coupled with expensive track and fire sensors.
1) Current ships built or under constructions inherited from the naval fighting doctrines of previous 20 or so years when drone threats were insignificant, or were not recognised as a serious threat.
2) CIWS were deployed as last line of defense against air threats thus not mounted in large numbers. Countries with large navy can always send out a flotilla that is able to form layer air defense from 200km to 2-5km with long/medium range SAMs and guns. (This is before drones showed their destructive power in Ukraine).
Recognition of drones threat came late but in near future we may see navies start to retrofit anti drone weapons and counter measures. CIWS is just one of these, others could be laser weapons, more small and medium guns with air burst proximity fuze shells (25mm to 76mm), and manpad/ micro size guided missiles as well.
Machines guns that has no proximity fuze are generlly ineffective against drones since they need a direct hit to shoot down a drone, unless they are coupled with expensive track and fire sensors.
Looking at this photo, it really feels like they tried a bit too hard to stuff a 1130 CIWS into the design
It looks like:
1. it's not positioned high enough, which will affect its front elevation angles,
2. it also wastes extra space in front of the bridge to give it decent side firing angles, which used to be less of a problem on 052D and 055 because they have angled superstructures for the 4 panel radars
It has vibe of a destroyer. Very big ship.