chopsticks
Junior Member
Su-27 Pilot said:
preferably a CREDIBLE source too. since he IS rather particular about the authenticity of info.
Anti-Ship missile
- Thread starter Liu Bang
- Start date
preferably a CREDIBLE source too. since he IS rather particular about the authenticity of info.
The French SAMOS and SATAN system is often comparred to the Dutch Goalkeeper because they all supposed to use the same GE 30mm GAU-8/A gun.
The original Goalkeeper CIWS system was designed to track up to 18 targets and engage the highest threat target. Unconfirmed claims on later improved variants is said to be able to track as many as 30 targets and auto-engage up to 4 highest priority ones. While the Type 730 CIWS might use a similiar 30mm Gatling gun, we don't know how well it works as a CIWS system comparred to the Goalkeeper.
Also, I donno why people would be embarassed over the Luhu (Type 052), it's the first modern PLAN multirole destroyer with integrated combat data system. Its combat capability is probably better than the UK Type 21 Frigate or the Type 42 Destroyer w/Exocets fitted. Granted it's an 80's design, but still very useful for a variety of jobs. It can prolly be refitted with better radar, sonoar, anti-missile system, and replace the 4 AA guns with more modern CIWS systems.
The original Goalkeeper CIWS system was designed to track up to 18 targets and engage the highest threat target. Unconfirmed claims on later improved variants is said to be able to track as many as 30 targets and auto-engage up to 4 highest priority ones. While the Type 730 CIWS might use a similiar 30mm Gatling gun, we don't know how well it works as a CIWS system comparred to the Goalkeeper.
Also, I donno why people would be embarassed over the Luhu (Type 052), it's the first modern PLAN multirole destroyer with integrated combat data system. Its combat capability is probably better than the UK Type 21 Frigate or the Type 42 Destroyer w/Exocets fitted. Granted it's an 80's design, but still very useful for a variety of jobs. It can prolly be refitted with better radar, sonoar, anti-missile system, and replace the 4 AA guns with more modern CIWS systems.
chopsticks said:
You're absolutely right, guys. This info regarding the EA-6B is kinda common knowledge I got through the grapevine while on active duty. It didn't generate a news story AFAIK. So you can disregard it as untrue if you wish.
Ain't my problem either way. At any rate, you guys are missing the point of having to source the Type 730. The Type 730 is so much like these European guns, it's hard to believe the claims of 4600 ~ 5800 rounds per minute. These systems are all engineered so similarly, yet the European ones claim around 4200 rounds per minute. So it would be nice to see a professional source claim otherwise for Type 730.
And you guys really don't want to play this little game with me. There's alot of discrepancy's that are unsourced but claimed as gospel on this site regarding China's military capabilities. For example, I've seen threads bragging about the new 093 nuke submarines. I've given the benefit of the doubt to their existence. I've even read one source (Chinese) claiming that the first one went on sea trials. And I've said I believe it to be true. Yet there are no pictures of this submarine at all. So basically we have no proof this sub even exists. With the exception of what's in People's Daily and Internet rumors. Don't miss my point here either. I believe in the existence of the 093 SSN and it's credibility. But from an engineering standpoint, it's hard to buy the Type 730 stats claiming a rate of fire better than Phalanx. That's why I called for a better source.
Last edited:
chopsticks
Junior Member
so basically you're (sea_dog) saying, that all the good news about Chinese military hardware is biased and untrue, while all the exaggerated emp flying saucer stuff that Usa has is true? WITHOUT proof?
good analysis and argument.
good analysis and argument.
This is what our sinodefense web site says:
"Detailed information on the Type 730's specifications is currently unavailable. The weapon system resembles the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS externally, and is assumed to have similar performance."
"The LD-2000 CIWS features a seven-barrelled cannon, which appears to be similar to the Dutch Golkeeper CIWS."
Janes:
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2005
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - MARCH 09, 2005
China develops LD 2000 CIWS
CHRISTOPHER F FOSS JDW Land Forces Editor
Abu Dhabi
It has recently been revealed that China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) has developed the LD 2000 Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) and has already carried out some firing trials.
The system would typically provide close-in protection of high-value strategic targets such as airfields, command posts and logistic centres and it is envisaged that it would be part of an overall layered air-defence system that would also include surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
The LD 2000 is mounted on a locally developed cross-country 8 x 8 forward-control truck. To provide a more stable firing platform, four stabilisers are lowered to the ground.
Mounted at the rear is the remote-controlled turret armed with a 30 mm seven-barrel cannon; two ammunition boxes each hold 500 rounds of ready-use ammunition. One magazine would typically hold armour piercing discarding sabot and the other high explosives. The empty cartridge cases are ejected forwards out of the lower part of the mount.
The 30 mm cannon has a cyclic rate of fire of 4,000 rds/min but would normally fire very short bursts. It has a maximum range of 3,000 m, but targets would normally be engaged at much shorter ranges, typically 1,000 m to 1,500 m.
The power-operated mount is unmanned and laid onto the target by a gunner who is seated in a fully enclosed module to the rear of the cab. Mounted on the top of the 30 mm gun mount is a wide-band tracking radar and alongside this is a day/thermal sighting system, which also incorporates a laser-range finder.
It is likely that the 30 mm weapon system was originally developed for ship-based applications and is very similar to the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS, which is also armed with a 30 mm seven-barrelled cannon and is in service with the Royal Netherlands Navy and a number of other countries.
As part of an overall layered air-defence system, SAMs would be used to engage targets at longer ranges while the CIWS would engage close-in targets, especially smaller targets such as air-launched missiles and cruise missiles, which can be difficult to neutralise with some current air-defence systems.
Target information would come from a command vehicle fitted with a surveillance radar, which would typically control between three and six LD 2000 firing units. If the battery had six firing units, three could be re-deployed to a new firing position while the other three were ready to engage targets.
A number of countries, including Israel and the US, have developed similar truck-based systems, usually based around the US Raytheon 20 mm Phalanx CIWS originally developed for naval applications. Often these 20 mm CIWS have been combined with SAMs. However, despite intensive marketing none of the systems have entered production or service.
Lots of photos for LD-2000 system + video (scroll to bottom)
NORINCO has a blurb on the LD-2000 under "Long Range Suppression Weapon Systems:
But there are no specs published there. =/
Russian translation of original Janes article (in Russian):
So the question here is, where did Janes reporter get the specs for the gun on the LD-2000? Did he talk to the NORINCO reps at the weapons trade show? Specs off a flyer? Some guy working at the NORINCO booth telling him "it fires at about 4,000 rounds/min" ?
"Detailed information on the Type 730's specifications is currently unavailable. The weapon system resembles the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS externally, and is assumed to have similar performance."
"The LD-2000 CIWS features a seven-barrelled cannon, which appears to be similar to the Dutch Golkeeper CIWS."
Janes:
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2005
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - MARCH 09, 2005
China develops LD 2000 CIWS
CHRISTOPHER F FOSS JDW Land Forces Editor
Abu Dhabi
It has recently been revealed that China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) has developed the LD 2000 Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) and has already carried out some firing trials.
The system would typically provide close-in protection of high-value strategic targets such as airfields, command posts and logistic centres and it is envisaged that it would be part of an overall layered air-defence system that would also include surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
The LD 2000 is mounted on a locally developed cross-country 8 x 8 forward-control truck. To provide a more stable firing platform, four stabilisers are lowered to the ground.
Mounted at the rear is the remote-controlled turret armed with a 30 mm seven-barrel cannon; two ammunition boxes each hold 500 rounds of ready-use ammunition. One magazine would typically hold armour piercing discarding sabot and the other high explosives. The empty cartridge cases are ejected forwards out of the lower part of the mount.
The 30 mm cannon has a cyclic rate of fire of 4,000 rds/min but would normally fire very short bursts. It has a maximum range of 3,000 m, but targets would normally be engaged at much shorter ranges, typically 1,000 m to 1,500 m.
The power-operated mount is unmanned and laid onto the target by a gunner who is seated in a fully enclosed module to the rear of the cab. Mounted on the top of the 30 mm gun mount is a wide-band tracking radar and alongside this is a day/thermal sighting system, which also incorporates a laser-range finder.
It is likely that the 30 mm weapon system was originally developed for ship-based applications and is very similar to the Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS, which is also armed with a 30 mm seven-barrelled cannon and is in service with the Royal Netherlands Navy and a number of other countries.
As part of an overall layered air-defence system, SAMs would be used to engage targets at longer ranges while the CIWS would engage close-in targets, especially smaller targets such as air-launched missiles and cruise missiles, which can be difficult to neutralise with some current air-defence systems.
Target information would come from a command vehicle fitted with a surveillance radar, which would typically control between three and six LD 2000 firing units. If the battery had six firing units, three could be re-deployed to a new firing position while the other three were ready to engage targets.
A number of countries, including Israel and the US, have developed similar truck-based systems, usually based around the US Raytheon 20 mm Phalanx CIWS originally developed for naval applications. Often these 20 mm CIWS have been combined with SAMs. However, despite intensive marketing none of the systems have entered production or service.
Lots of photos for LD-2000 system + video (scroll to bottom)
NORINCO has a blurb on the LD-2000 under "Long Range Suppression Weapon Systems:
But there are no specs published there. =/
Russian translation of original Janes article (in Russian):
So the question here is, where did Janes reporter get the specs for the gun on the LD-2000? Did he talk to the NORINCO reps at the weapons trade show? Specs off a flyer? Some guy working at the NORINCO booth telling him "it fires at about 4,000 rounds/min" ?
Last edited:
You probaly won't find a link about that incident. It happened in October to November 1990. I do not know what ship or squadron the Prowler was attatched to but I jus know that it happened. I remember a short news report about it. In another incident a few months later E/A-6B's flying in suppourt a USMC traing operation at Camp Pendelton CA set off numerous garage door openers, car alarms, and other electronic devices in area's near Camp Pendelton. The USN at the time denied the Prowler caused this to happen. But a later independent civillian investigation proved the Prowler was the culprupt.
I can't provide you a link to either event. I just know it happened. Believe what you may.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
Sea Dog said:You're absolutely right, guys. This info regarding the EA-6B is kinda common knowledge I got through the grapevine while on active duty. It didn't generate a news story AFAIK. So you can disregard it as untrue if you wish.
At any rate, you guys are missing the point of having to source the Type 730. The Type 730 is so much like these European guns, it's hard to believe the claims of 4600 ~ 5800 rounds per minute. These systems are all engineered so similarly, yet the European ones claim around 4200 rounds per minute. So it would be nice to see a professional source claim otherwise for Type 730.
And you guys really don't want to play this little game with me. There's alot of discrepancy's that are unsourced but claimed as gospel on this site regarding China's military capabilities. For example, I've seen threads bragging about the new 093 nuke submarines. I've given the benefit of the doubt to their existence. I've even read one source (Chinese) claiming that the first one went on sea trials. And I've said I believe it to be true. Yet there are no pictures of this submarine at all. So basically we have no proof this sub even exists. With the exception of what's in People's Daily and Internet rumors. Don't miss my point here either. I believe in the existence of the 093 SSN and it's credibility. But from an engineering standpoint, it's hard to buy the Type 730 stats claiming a rate of fire better than Phalanx. That's why I called for a better source.
my *** !!! watch your language boy !!!tha ak-630 has a firing rate of 5000+ rounds per minute. just because the type 730 looks like a golkeeper doesnt mean it has to work lke one. a mig 29 looks like an f-18 right? then ill assume it can fire harpoons.
it seems u beieve what europeans say and not what chinese say.
as for the 52, it is a great ship. all it needs is a ciws insted of auto 25mm guns. and it needs a grizzly
Last edited by a moderator:
The Type 730 CWIS appears to be a very capable system. Regardless of whether the rate of fire is 4000 rpm or 5800 rpm, it has significantly more firepower than the US Phalanx System. Also, given that the PLAN is putting the 2x Type 730 on it's most advanced and most expensive ships while the cheaper frigates are getting 4x AK 630, it would seem that the PLAN believes that 1 type 730 offers better protection than 2 AK 630.
btw, does anyone know what type of ammunition the type 730 fires? NATO 30mm rounds are different and more powerful than Russian 30mm rounds. If the type 730 uses NATO 30mm rounds the type 730's performance is likely to be similar to goalkeeper's performance, but if it uses Russian rounds expect a rate of fire >5000 rpm.
btw, does anyone know what type of ammunition the type 730 fires? NATO 30mm rounds are different and more powerful than Russian 30mm rounds. If the type 730 uses NATO 30mm rounds the type 730's performance is likely to be similar to goalkeeper's performance, but if it uses Russian rounds expect a rate of fire >5000 rpm.
MIGleader said:
No, the Type 730 doesn't have to work like Goalkeeper (or SATAN and SAMOS) just because they are virtually identical in many ways. But the fact that they are, make this data rather suspect. And don't change guns here. I know what an AK-630 can do. And yes, European military databases seem very accurate. So I'd like to see what they have to say. So far, type 730's figures in these look to be absent. But I don't care either way at this point. I'm sick of arguing this point since you can't even understand why I asked for further info in the first place. MIGleader, I find it amazing that you take military analysis as something personal.
And I never said 052 and 051 ships weren't going to be good ships. They look as though they will be very good ships indeed. But it also looks like they are going to use existing, yet proven naval specs that is already outclassed by Western designs. The Japanese Kongos will continue to be the Asian powerhouse naval destroyers in the region. And the 051 and 052's are clearly not going to match the capabilities and raw firepower of an Arleigh Burke ships also. period. China has not proven the capabilities in electronic warfare like the USN has, so I'm assuming it will be a step ahead for PLAN....but still outclassed by Western standards. And China will not be able to effectively use these ships against a USN CSG. Their naval support is non-existent. They will be good regional destroyers, but they will not be enough to match the USN in any battlespace. If you look at data and do some research, you would come to the same conclusion. It's not a personal insult to you or the PLAN. I thought we were doing military analysis here......not childish "Mine's bigger than yours".