Anti-Ship missile
- Thread starter Liu Bang
- Start date
MIGleader said:
Well the purpose is not for total invisibility. But for a reduction in cross section. Elliptical shapes are capable of doing this with certain coatings FYI. Plus you're forgetting that the USN has a humongous advantage in electronic warfare capabilities. As far as the main gun goes, you're right. But the Phalanx is definitely not underpowered. It has the best muzzle restraint systems out there. That gives it the least dispersion of any system out there. Plus it has a rate of fire of 4500 rounds per minute. Type 730 doesn';t appear to be capable of this. Plus size of the round isn't as important as dispersion and muzzle velocity. Not alot of info out there on 730 but it seems to be a Goalkeeper copy. At loeast at the system level. And Phalanx is better than that system. But the main point in regard to stealth, I won't get further into it, but it's extremely difficult to target an Arleigh Burke. If the USN has trouble, I can only surmise China would probably find it downright impossible.
And one other thing. Ship stealth characteristics aren't the end all. Did you know a radar has ways of finding a stealth ship. Missiles too. There are ways of looking for natural disturbances of waves in the water. When a radar is used to survey the ocean, it will pick up the normal distortions of the waves of the sea. When a stealth ship is on the water, the radar displays an area of the sea of nothingness. So there are ways to deal with it. Why do you think the USN more relies on and develops newer and better electronic warfare techniques?
And look. I know you're highly nationalistic. But be realistic and objective here. These new Chinese ships are better than what China has fielded in the past, but they are totally outclassed and outmatched by Ticonderoga's and Arleigh Burkes. Just looking at them (endurance, survivability, weapons, electronics, etc.) it's clear they are no match for the USN AEGIS ships. 051 and 052 type ships are better than Luda's and Luhu's, but China still has a loooooong way to go before she can proficiently field a ship like an Arleigh Burke. Much less build one. The USN has built decades worth of foundations to come up with these designs and systems. Plus tons of years of experience in maintaining and operating them. China, as of now, has none of this.
Last edited:
MIGleader said:
Well the Phalanx CIWS gun does have its advantages. It uses a ligher 20mm M61 gun and the 1,500 round ammo container is mounted directly on the gun. This makes it easier to install the Phalanx system to existing ships.
The Dutch Goalkeepr is generally considered a better system, but it uses the 30mm GAU-8 gun found on the A-10, and its 1,100 round ammo container is stored below-deck. It's much harder to install a Goalkeeper gun to an existing ship without major retrofit.
If you look at export figures, many more Phalanx systems were sold than Goalkeeper systems. In total only about 50 Goalkeeper CIWS systems have been made. The PLAN likes it - Type 730 gun is prolly very similiar.
Type 730 CIWS are located both sides behind the bridge. The weapon system has a maximum rate of fire of 4,600~5,800 rounds/min. From sinodefense and pretty much other sources.Sea Dog said:
There is no need bringing up luda and luhus, I'm offended now.
You are over generalizing here. We don't know what kind of electronics China has. As I have said, China has all the necessary tools to make a system as good as AB, it will just take time to develop it. It can probably develop it much faster than US did, because it is given a head start with the modern electronics and systems and Russian help vs what US had when it started. As for stuff like endurance and survivability, they sound like the same thing to me. As for weapons, it will just take time, but definitely not decadeS. And my explanations are mentionned already.
tphuang said:
Actually, sinodefence doesn't mention anything regarding rate of fire on Type 730. I've seen some sources say that it's rate of fire is identical to Goalkeeper at 4200 rounds per minute. But even that can't be confirmed. Other than that, it's hard to find that figure. If you have a credible link, I'd like to see it. If it does have a rate of fire greater than 4500, that would of course outclass Phalanx.
But why get offended? Luda's and Luhu's served their purposes at the time. And they have been the mainstays of the PLAN now for years including beyond year 2000. So what's the problem in saying that 051 and 052 are better than they are? I'm mystified here. But I have a hard time thinking PLAN will be able to field a ship as good as USN AEGIS by implementing alot of systems from foreign sources. Alot of this hardware is current existing naval hardware and technology. And most of this stuff is largely outclassed by USN tech. I have never put down the PLAN or it's modernization efforts. But I believe in being real about things. PLAN is looking to field a system that the USN has largely gone beyond years ago. Plus the USN is develping naval capabilities that will go beyond AEGIS. As far as I can see, China is nowhere close.
If they only knew Sea Dog. If they only knew. I know the USN ECM is superior. I've seen it in action. Not to mention what a EA-6B can do. Some in this forum think they know. But they don't. I ovbious by what they post.....if they only knew!
Exactly. You just can't build a modern ship and know how to operate it. I takes years to develop war fighting techniqs. If I were in charge of the PLAN I would make sure my sailors were well trained. But the problem is the PLAN has conscripts that are only in service for two years(I think)..You can't train anyone in anything "high tech" in that amount of time. As an example my son,A USN Sonar Tech, spent 20 months in training before he was sent to sea. So I have to wonder what sort of technicas the PLAN is sending to sea? Anyone know?
The high tech training is not all they will need. Damage control and firefighting are just as important....
check the 052C guns section in sinodefense. Again, that's not saying 730 is actually that good. But I'd think 730 has to be better than AK-630 for China to use it in its most advanced ships.Sea Dog said:
Luhu and Luda are getting upgraded, so they are barely okay systems now. Still, I'm ashamed of them. I'd rather not compare 168+ and 115-116 to them.
Again, PLAN won't be able to do it right now, but the electronics and software tools used to build the American systems are generally available to Chinese right now, but they weren't available to the Americans 30 years ago. So, to say that just because the Americans have spent 40 years in AEGIS, China will also spend 40 years on it doesn't make sense. I'm sure America is planning for better systems, but they will still be called AEGIS, but just better AEGIS. After all, air defense in the end is still all about SAM, radar, control systems and such.
@bdpopeye - In regards to the electronic warfare fighting systems, look what they have in U.S. Air Force E-3's and USN E-2's as well. The electronic warfare stuff in the AEGIS platforms is also absolutely astounding. BTW, if you check page 6 of this topic at near the middle of the page, I summarize briefly how the AEGIS works. I don't think China will be able to duplicate this capability in the near term. Russia even abandoned their efforts, and they have very capable weapons engineers there. Russia's system had alot of tracking and coordinated fire problems. And you're right about the training. It takes alot of time to adequately train crews and lots more years to build the skills necessary to field credible capabilities in the technology you're using. And conscripts will definitely be a setback for PLAN as it is on Russia. That's just the nature of high-tech weaponry. You just can't cut corners like PLAN is trying to do.
@tphuang - Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. But this is the only place I've seen any info regarding rate of fire. It would be nice to confirm it with one more source only because it is so much like the Dutch system. I'm not saying that Type 730 is not good. Looks like it's very capable. I'm just saying it's almost impossible to verify it's specifications. And you got to admit, it's very much like Goalkeeper, and that system only fires at 4200 rounds per minute.
And there's no reason to be ashamed of the Luda's and Luhu's. Heck, Luhai should be respected as well. I never compared these ships to 051 and 052, I only used it as an example to show that PLAN is making progress. It's a generational step in capabilities. That's all. You seem like a nice guy, and I would not purposely offend you, sir. And when you see me being honest here, it's not a personal attack. I just prefer pure analysis. And reality. And objectivity.
BTW - Survivability and endurance are 2 different things. Survivability is stuff like bdpopeye says....firefighting and damage control and things of that nature. Endurance refers to things like range, maintenance cycles of engines, fuel capacity, weapons capacity,etc.
Oh, yeah. And one more thing. In regards to having access to software tools and such. Just because I have hammers, bricks, mortar, nails, and other building materials....it doesn't mean I have the know how or the experience necessary to build a house.
@tphuang - Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. But this is the only place I've seen any info regarding rate of fire. It would be nice to confirm it with one more source only because it is so much like the Dutch system. I'm not saying that Type 730 is not good. Looks like it's very capable. I'm just saying it's almost impossible to verify it's specifications. And you got to admit, it's very much like Goalkeeper, and that system only fires at 4200 rounds per minute.
And there's no reason to be ashamed of the Luda's and Luhu's. Heck, Luhai should be respected as well. I never compared these ships to 051 and 052, I only used it as an example to show that PLAN is making progress. It's a generational step in capabilities. That's all. You seem like a nice guy, and I would not purposely offend you, sir. And when you see me being honest here, it's not a personal attack. I just prefer pure analysis. And reality. And objectivity.
BTW - Survivability and endurance are 2 different things. Survivability is stuff like bdpopeye says....firefighting and damage control and things of that nature. Endurance refers to things like range, maintenance cycles of engines, fuel capacity, weapons capacity,etc.
Oh, yeah. And one more thing. In regards to having access to software tools and such. Just because I have hammers, bricks, mortar, nails, and other building materials....it doesn't mean I have the know how or the experience necessary to build a house.
Last edited:
don't worry about it, I rarely take offense to anything, but I just enjoy using hyperbole once in a while. As for 730, I guess we will really have to wait. I've been too involved with other parts that I have no bothered to research on 730. You are right about the software part, but it's much easier to do so with the current technology. Something that might have taken 20 years to do before would only take 5 years now.