Anti-Ship missile
- Thread starter Liu Bang
- Start date
MIGleader said:
Not necessarilly. Russia uses a different standard of 30mm ammunition than NATO, so a NATO 30mm gun at 4200 rpm might have more firepower than a russian 30mm gun at 5000 rpm (I am not sure which type 730 uses). However, that is not the main reason why Type 730 is preffered. Remeber that 1 type 730 is preffered over AK 630, and 2 AK 630 definately have more firepower than 1 AK 730.
The main reason why type 730 is preferred probably has to do with the fire controll system. The AK 630 is not a closed-loop system, meaning it cannot track both incoming and outgoing rounds. While it is hard to say for certain how type 730 works, it is likely that it is a closed loop system, and that is probably why it is preffered over AK 630.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
trkl said:
the ak-630 is useful because it is small and can easily be fitted on small ships. the type 730 may use an entirely different 30mm round developed by norinco. the sonfig is strange...
the 52bs and cs are fitted with two type 730, but the type 54 is fitted with four ak-630. very strange.
lastly, i believe the traking and accuracy of a ciws are more important than how fast it fires.
MIGleader said:
Rate of Fire is only one specification. 4200 rounds per minute is excellent. Phalanx is 4500, and that's excellent also. But how it tracks, and engages is far more important. How is the system mounted? etc. There are alot of factors that go into it. One of the reasons Phalanx is so successful is because it can be mounted virtually anywhere. I would say that Type 730 has a better kinetic energy profile over a Phalanx simply because the round is bigger at 30mm. So that means it's kill distance is probably better than Phalanx as well. But Phalanx has better suppression mounts for less dispersion. And you just can't beat Phalanx in terms of ship compatibility. You could probably mount one on a row boat if it had the space. And 20mm is quite sufficient to do the job. Plus Phalanx has a 360 capability combined with excellent track and kill ability. And remember, the goal is never having to use these guns in the first place. They are last chance defense against your ship. Most navies prefer defending the ship with accurate missiles further away from the ship. Better for the pucker factor.
MIGleader said:
Link does not work. And there's got to be a reason why it's not as widely used as a Phalanx. And I would have a hard time believing the Russians wouldn't sell it to anyone.
MIGleader said:
I don't think so, because you don't see the fire control/tracking system on the turret on the AK-630, that's mean that you need to connect your gun to ship main fire control system, while the phalanx act "alone". The Phalanx system is independant in this way (got his own aiming system), while you need your ship main radar to aim the incoming target for the ak-630, and don't tell me that those system are easier to install and smaller to a Phalanx. That's why US Army also use the R2D2 (Nickname of the phalanx) to defend bases against incoming mortar and artillery shell. It can detect every incoming shell and shoot it alone, it's a active automatised defence.
Well AK-630 uses the vymple radar for firecontroll, and I think its idenpendent from ships main radarsuite. Its just isent fitted whit same platform than the gun.