French, German and Italian navies don't even feature Gatlings in their most modern ships.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
French, German and Italian navies don't even feature Gatlings in their most modern ships.
If a missile made it to CIWS range you have already failed, its a last line defence and ideally should never have to be used. Its usefulness against supersonic missiles is also debatable, a mach 3 missile travels about 1km per second which gives ciws maybe 3 seconds to engage it.I am still surprised the Chinese didn’t provide both gun and missile close in defence systems At either end of the ship. On a ship this size there is surely room to mouany both the Gatling gun and the RAM equivlane missile at both ends. Having 2 Gatling guns is rather important if the ship is subjected to saturation missile attack.
Even if you hit it say 1km out the remains of the missile is still gonna hit you at very high speed.
On this topic Here is a high quality close up video of a subsonic RBS 15, you can play it 2x speed to see what a missile doing mach 1.8 would look like.If a missile made it to CIWS range you have already failed, its a last line defence and ideally should never have to be used. Its usefulness against supersonic missiles is also debatable, a mach 3 missile travels about 1km per second which gives ciws maybe 3 seconds to engage it.
Even if you hit it say 1km out the remains of the missile is still gonna hit you at very high speed.
Anyone have videos of CIWS tests against missiles?
For a while, the USN commissioned DDG-51 FLIIA ships without any CIWS. Later on, they installed Phalanx on the aft mount when it was realized that they could be used against swarm attacks, drones, etc. But they don't seem to hold a lot of faith anymore in using gatling guns against missiles.French, German and Italian navies don't even feature Gatlings in their most modern ships.
For a while, the USN commissioned DDG-51 FLIIA ships without any CIWS. Later on, they installed Phalanx on the aft mount when it was realized that they could be used against swarm attacks, drones, etc. But they don't seem to hold a lot of faith anymore in using gatling guns against missiles.
They installed some IIA with SeaRAM. If you see my post in the US navy thread at the CDF, one IIA got a Phalanx mounted in front which is unusual, but most IIA doesn't have Phalanx at the front and some believe the space is reserved so they may put anti-drone lasers in the front.
Usually, back is considered more vulnerable than front, as front tends to have reduced radar cross section and hitting at the bow tends to deflect the missile, not to mention it is far from the criticals. Center flanks and rear are considered more vulnerable and the better of the CIWS are located in the rear. The fact that HQ-10 are placed on the rear of the 052D, 056 and 055 shows more faith on the missiles than on the Gatling guns.
The side is considered most vulnerable because of the obvious location of the citadel. That's why having two CIWS fore and aft allows both to cover one side at a time, compared to the layout with two CIWS amidships. This is also why ECM is placed on the sides and low.
Germans put their faith completely on RAM, with ships having RAM on front, or on both fore and aft. But that may partly having something to do with them having partly developed the missile in partnership, but then again, the whole concept of RAM maybe as a result of their studies. And also the Chinese doesn't copy unless there is significant merit to the idea.
French and Italians put their faith on the 76mm Oto Melara.
If a missile made it to CIWS range you have already failed, its a last line defence and ideally should never have to be used. Its usefulness against supersonic missiles is also debatable, a mach 3 missile travels about 1km per second which gives ciws maybe 3 seconds to engage it.
Even if you hit it say 1km out the remains of the missile is still gonna hit you at very high speed.
Chance of missiles reaching within 30km of any warship is quite high because antiship missiles skim just above the water avoiding detection and using the sea clutter as cover. There is also the earth curvature thing that results in a radar horizon.
So what does the PLAN warship do? Every ship mounts a secondary surface search radar high above on top of the mast. This appears as in a globular dome, and is referred to as the Type 364 radar. This radar is optimized for searching and scanning for sea skimming targets, reducing sea clutter. The location of the radar means it has an extended radar horizon. When a missile pops up over the radar horizon, the you can get warned earlier. The radar then queues the HQ-10 and the 730/1130 CIWS ahead in anticipation of the missile.
In the 055, the Type 364 is succeeded by four panels of X-band radar on top of the pyramid mast.
In addition, PLAN warships mount ESM on high above the mast. Usually there are two pairs situated on the side of the mast. On the 055, the ESM is mounted even higher than the X-band radar, in the form of two half cylindrical objects mounted at the very top of the pyramid right at the base of its kebob mast that holds the TACAN and communication arrays.
The need for more advanced warning from an extended radar horizon is also noticed by the USN, which is why AEGIS Baseline 9 upgrade now requires adding a small secondary radar in the form of the SPQ-9B radar on top of the mast
As for supersonic missiles, PLAN doesn't have much faith on using 20mm like USN does, they went to a 30mm that is more than half of the shell weight, has much greater hitting power and can sustain its velocity over a greater range. A 730 uses a 30mm Gatling gun similar in RPM to the GAU-8 Avenger used in the A-10 attack aircraft which is used to shred tanks. The use of 30mm is in line with the Russian preference, using AK-630 and Kashtans, and the Russians certainly know their supersonic missiles, and I trust they would know how to defend against such. We also see the Dutch going with the 30mm, with the Goalkeeper using the GAU-8 gun.
If that is not all, PLAN choose to double rate of RPM on the 730 from 5000 to 10,000, to create the 1130. So there is something going on there. But even with 30mm and doubling the rate is not enough, recently we have seen the shells these guns are using are discarding sabots. This means they are solid shells designed to kill a target completely kinetically, shredding it to pieces.
Yet with all the measures, the prime position of the CIWS is the rear due to its vulnerability and the spot is given to HQ-10, going from two Gatling guns fore and aft in the 052C to Gatling gun in front and close range missile in the rear.
Of course they and every navy in the world are not saying their studies and results in public, so we have to rely on their actions and body language.
Those ships that got SeaRAM did not have the AEGIS Baseline 9 upgrade. Without it, when they perform BMD they cannot use AEGIS for air defense. SeaRAM is fully autonomous with its own search/track/engage capability, so they compensate for that. Baseline 9 comes (or will come in its subvariants) with undisclosed backend upgrades to SPY-1. From what I could gather, this includes the introduction of GaN solid-state amps in the RF amplification chain.They installed some IIA with SeaRAM. If you see my post in the US navy thread at the CDF, one IIA got a Phalanx mounted in front which is unusual, but most IIA doesn't have Phalanx at the front and some believe the space is reserved so they may put anti-drone lasers in the front.
Sabot rounds increase muzzle velocity and effective range, with the added benefit of AP performance. Phalanx uses them as well.But even with 30mm and doubling the rate is not enough, recently we have seen the shells these guns are using are discarding sabots. This means they are solid shells designed to kill a target completely kinetically, shredding it to pieces.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.