Anti-Ship missile
- Thread starter Liu Bang
- Start date
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
rommel said:
no one ever expected it to be a stand alone system. one can tell by looking at it that it doesnt have sensors on the gun. now, exactly how easy it is to modify a radar to suite ciws is uncertain. but im not saying its easy. if it was, china should modify all its non ciws ships to fit an ak-630.
On ships like the Dalhi, the AK-630 CIWS gun is guided by the MR-123 Vympel fire-control radar, mounted elsewhere on the ship.
A typical AK-630 CIWS gun is said to have an ammo magazine of 2,000 rounds. Since the gun is 30mm and the turret is kinda small, the ammo is most likely stored below deck.
So just because the AK-630 looks "small" doesn't mean it's easier to install than the Phalanx. Let's look at what they say about Goalkeeper CIWS vs. Phalanx CIWS:
Comparison to Phalanx
The Phalanx CIWS system is another system that is widely used in the same role, there are several key differences between the two systems:
* Goalkeepers projectiles are much larger (30 mm versus 20 mm) and have greater Kinetic energy.
* Goalkeeper is twice as expensive as the Phalanx.
* Phalanx can be welded to any section of deck and plugged in, while Goalkeeper requires significant 'deck penetration' and integration.
* Phalanx can only track and engage one target at a time, while Goalkeeper can track 18 targets and switch to engage the greatest threat.
* Both weapons have similar maximum ranges, however Goalkeepers kill distance is reportedly a slightly further (500 to 350 meters compared to 300 meters for the Phalanx).
* Phalanx ammo drum is mounted directly on the gun, the Goalkeeper is reloaded from below deck.
A typical AK-630 CIWS gun is said to have an ammo magazine of 2,000 rounds. Since the gun is 30mm and the turret is kinda small, the ammo is most likely stored below deck.
So just because the AK-630 looks "small" doesn't mean it's easier to install than the Phalanx. Let's look at what they say about Goalkeeper CIWS vs. Phalanx CIWS:
Comparison to Phalanx
The Phalanx CIWS system is another system that is widely used in the same role, there are several key differences between the two systems:
* Goalkeepers projectiles are much larger (30 mm versus 20 mm) and have greater Kinetic energy.
* Goalkeeper is twice as expensive as the Phalanx.
* Phalanx can be welded to any section of deck and plugged in, while Goalkeeper requires significant 'deck penetration' and integration.
* Phalanx can only track and engage one target at a time, while Goalkeeper can track 18 targets and switch to engage the greatest threat.
* Both weapons have similar maximum ranges, however Goalkeepers kill distance is reportedly a slightly further (500 to 350 meters compared to 300 meters for the Phalanx).
* Phalanx ammo drum is mounted directly on the gun, the Goalkeeper is reloaded from below deck.
MIGleader said:
AK-630 might look small and easy to install but it's not, look at , see all that eletronics?
Phalanx doesn't come with all that, it stands alone there's no eletronics to install, thus as adeptitus stated it can almost go anywhere, just "plug and play"...
personally i would just get two phalanx and some Rafael Barak, SeaWolf SAM, or Pantzyr as a back up..
swimmerXC said:
Great link!
"The 30mm AK-630 is a six-barrel gatling-gun system used to protect naval vessels from incoming AShMs like the Harpoon and Exocet. The gun fires HE-FRAG incendiaries or fragmentation tracer projectiles. The gun can be laid remotely from the radar control system and target tracker. The maximum rate of fire is 5000 rounds/min while the muzzle velocity is 880 meters per second. The gun is provided with an automatic belt feed and requires a crew of one. The range is up to 4000 meters for low flying anti-ship missiles and 5000 meters for light surface targets. The gun is equipped with radar and television detection & tracking."
@_@ Looks like the gun system needs to have a human operator.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
swimmerXC said:back up what you say with proof not not full BS, instead of letting other do your work! im sick of reading these post by you
have it your way. ill use reasoning. im not saying a ak-630 is lighter than a phalanx, its just easier to put on a smaller craft.
can u imagine what a phalanx would to if it replaced the ak-630?
it would make the ship more top heavy.
but id take a kashtan anyday