Modern CIWS & Anti-Missile Systems (Deployed and in development)

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

SinoSoldier said:

The 1130's sudden and pronounced appearance on the 054 perhaps signifies and/or reinforces the defensive nature of these vessels. One would expect the more "high-value" 052C/D to sport these systems, but it seems that the PLAN is really keen on using these ships as players in a wider network of naval task groups rather than as individual units.

Click to expand...

I think you're overanalyzing this.

CIWS is just CIWS -- a last ditch defence for the ship itself. Holding everything else constant, a more capable CIWS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a ship's purpose as an "individual unit" versus an asset in a network. By that logic, I could say that older 054As with 730 as CIWS are more intended to be used in a naval group than these newer 054As with 1130 as CIWS -- obviously that's ridiculous.

052Ds might not have 1130s because the front platform with the 730 would require too much modification for a 1130, whereas the 054A's design of the two 730 sites need less work to field the 1130.
1130 is just a qualitative improvement over 730 anyway.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Bltizo said:

I think you're overanalyzing this.

CIWS is just CIWS -- a last ditch defence for the ship itself. Holding everything else constant, a more capable CIWS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a ship's purpose as an "individual unit" versus an asset in a network. By that logic, I could say that older 054As with 730 as CIWS are more intended to be used in a naval group than these newer 054As with 1130 as CIWS -- obviously that's ridiculous.

052Ds might not have 1130s because the front platform with the 730 would require too much modification for a 1130, whereas the 054A's design of the two 730 sites need less work to field the 1130.
1130 is just a qualitative improvement over 730 anyway.

Click to expand...

You bring up good points. However, I think you misunderstood my premise a bit. The appearance of a 1130 on a Type 054A could exemplify that the PLAN wants it to capitalize on its anti-missile capability, and thus reaffirm its role as a defensive unit, operating in concert with other assets within a task group. A similar but opposing pattern is seen on the 052 series, where their anti-ship capabilities have been beefed up by the C-602, which would give them roles that are more skewed towards anti-surface warfare. That's simply a theory of mine and could be merely a product of none other than coincidence or other confounding variables.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

SinoSoldier said:

You bring up good points. However, I think you misunderstood my premise a bit. The appearance of a 1130 on a Type 054A could exemplify that the PLAN wants it to capitalize on its anti-missile capability, and thus reaffirm its role as a defensive unit, operating in concert with other assets within a task group.

Click to expand...

My reply is twofold:
1: 1130 is only a CIWS and its range is short-- in a realistic task group formation, its ability to support other ships will be very limited due to its limited range. The point of CIWS is to be a last ditch defense for the ship itself, not to protect other ships. In a task force, ships will be quite a few kilometers away from each other, beyond the support of each other's CIWS.
2: 1130 is a relatively small qualitative improvement over 730 -- that is to say, it doesn't have much of an improved anti missile capability to "capitalize" on. 1130 improves RoF but retains the same effective range as 730, and it is still a CIWS. In other words, 054A with 1130 does not have more area defense capability/defense support capability than an 054A with 730.
All 1130 does is provide better self defense capability to a ship compared to if it were equipped with 730 instead.

A similar but opposing pattern is seen on the 052 series, where their anti-ship capability have been beefed up by the C-602, which would give it a role more skewed towards anti-surface warfare. That's simply a theory of mine and could be merely a product of none other than coincidence or other confounding factors.

Click to expand...

From what I can see, you believe that 054A having 1130 somehow makes the ship more air-defense orientated and 052C having YJ-62 makes the ship more surface-warfare orientated?
I'm sure I don't need to illustrate to you why that kind of view is rather simple and obviously flawed.

It would be more accurate to say that 052C having YJ-62 is superior in surface strike versus say, a notional 052C equipped with YJ-82 instead.
Similarly, it would be more accurate to say 054A with 1130s has superior self defense capability against air threats versus 054As with 730s.

More often than not, the overall role of a ship is not changed when a minor subsystem is changed or slightly improved, and that is the case with both examples that you cite.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Do you think Ciws really effective against aircrafts, i have some doubts, range, altitude... seems really better guns and missiles, 2 systems by ex. 052D or Kashtan ?

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

FORBIN said:

Do you think Ciws really effective against aircrafts, i have some doubts, range, altitude... seems really better guns and missiles, 2 systems by ex. 052D or Kashtan ?

Click to expand...

I don't understand your quesiton?

Are you asking to compare kashtan with type 730, or are you saying one is better than the other?

Or are you saying all CIWS in general are ineffective against aircraft? That's obviously true, because no self respecting aircraft will get within effective CIWS range.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Bltizo said:

I don't understand your quesiton?

Are you asking to compare kashtan with type 730, or are you saying one is better than the other?

Or are you saying all CIWS in general are ineffective against aircraft? That's obviously true, because no self respecting aircraft will get within effective CIWS range.

Click to expand...

I ask for AA close defense, point with Ciws and SAM short range.

That's obviously true, because no self respecting aircraft will get within effective CIWS range

Click to expand...

It is also my opinion also because CIWS shoot against targets only to extremely low altitude.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

joshuatree said:

The article sorta contradicts the photo as it mentioned the 1130 will likely be placed on ships 12,000 tons due to weight and power requirements but the 054A is clearly less than that.

Click to expand...

No bragging or anything but i am pretty sure that:

Wantchinatimes
Ibtimes
Russian article (whatever it is)

(which were all published this week or last) Are all using my article from March 2013:


Back then, a Chinese contact/acquaintance of mine translated a CCTV report on H/PJ-14 CIWS which helped me write this:
A recent Chinese TV report on Liaoning reported that following studies and testing, H/PJ-14 is able to intercept incoming anti-ship missiles up to a speed of Mach 4 with a 96% success rate.

However the following was speculation from me and my contact:
Exclusively fitted on the Liaoning aircraft carrier, H/PJ-14 is expected to be installed on the next generation of Chinese destroyers, the 12,000 tons Type 055. The latest generation of destroyer, the Type 052D currently being built will still be fitted with the older Type 730. The reason maybe the much larger H/PJ-14 is very power consuming and only larger vessels may accommodate its power needs.

Speculation that is today proved wrong but what do you expect from stupid media outlets who use google (my article is #1 result if you type Hp/J-14 and #3 with Type 1130) and almost blatantly copy and paste content without thinking for a minute...

Oh well, we all make mystakes I guess

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

FORBIN said:

Do you think Ciws really effective against aircrafts, i have some doubts, range, altitude... seems really better guns and missiles, 2 systems by ex. 052D or Kashtan ?

Click to expand...

If the aircraft is within range of a CIWS than of course it's effective otherwise not but that goes with any other weapon system.
As a matter a fact if any aircraft is within range it must mean the pilot is probably on a kamikaze mission but either way his lifespan would be very short.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

Bltizo said:

My reply is twofold:
1: 1130 is only a CIWS and its range is short-- in a realistic task group formation, its ability to support other ships will be very limited due to its limited range. The point of CIWS is to be a last ditch defense for the ship itself, not to protect other ships. In a task force, ships will be quite a few kilometers away from each other, beyond the support of each other's CIWS.
2: 1130 is a relatively small qualitative improvement over 730 -- that is to say, it doesn't have much of an improved anti missile capability to "capitalize" on. 1130 improves RoF but retains the same effective range as 730, and it is still a CIWS. In other words, 054A with 1130 does not have more area defense capability/defense support capability than an 054A with 730.
All 1130 does is provide better self defense capability to a ship compared to if it were equipped with 730 instead.

Click to expand...

I see your point. I guess that if the Type 054A really was to embark on the anti-missile role it would go for the FL-3000N instead.

Bltizo said:

From what I can see, you believe that 054A having 1130 somehow makes the ship more air-defense orientated and 052C having YJ-62 makes the ship more surface-warfare orientated?
I'm sure I don't need to illustrate to you why that kind of view is rather simple and obviously flawed.

It would be more accurate to say that 052C having YJ-62 is superior in surface strike versus say, a notional 052C equipped with YJ-82 instead.
Similarly, it would be more accurate to say 054A with 1130s has superior self defense capability against air threats versus 054As with 730s.

Click to expand...

Yes, I realize there's a high probability that the differences in armament may be only accredited to technical constraints or budget concerns, but the pattern of seeing "heavy" loads of AShMs on the 052 series (sixteen on the 052, for example) still leads me to believe that the leadership sees a potential for specialization in regards to weapons capability and combat role for the two vessels (namely, the 052 series and 054 series).

Bltizo said:

More often than not, the overall role of a ship is not changed when a minor subsystem is changed or slightly improved, and that is the case with both examples that you cite.

Click to expand...

My original post was asserting that the new 1130 on the 054A confirms its potential role as a specialized missile defense ship, rather than a change of role altogether. I hope that clears things up.

Re: PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II

SinoSoldier said:

I see your point. I guess that if the Type 054A really was to embark on the anti-missile role it would go for the FL-3000N instead.

Click to expand...

Er you've missed the entire point, I think.
HQ-10 is a CIWS as well, with relatively limited range, so all HQ-10 would do is offer different (possibly superior, depending on the type of threat environment) close in self defence capability against missiles.
You really shouldn't say that improving CIWS gives a ship improved an "anti missile role" because that makes it sound like they can offer area air defence against missiles -- whereas in reality improved CIWS only improves the ship's ability to protect itself, not other ships.

Besides 054A already has an area air defence role (yes, including anti missile) with HHQ-16. I'm really confused as to why you're focusing so much on something which is so relatively mundane as an improved CIWS. Remember, even the longest ranged missile based CIWS only has range of ~10km at most, while most gun based CIWS only reach ~4km. Those kind of ranges are nowhere near enough for mutual support in a formation of ships.

Also, recall the definition of CIWS is Close In Weapons System -- meanign the weapon is designed for last ditch engagements. Basically, when the missile is far too close than it should be, and you're relying on your last line of hard kill defence to take it out. So by definition, improving CIWS just improves the ship's survivability rather than giving it an "anti missile role" -- because if you're relying on CIWS to fill an anti missile role then something is terribly wrong.

Yes, I realize there's a high probability that the differences in armament may be only due to technical constraints or budget concerns, but the pattern of seeing "heavy" loads of AShMs on the 052 series (sixteen on the 052, for example) still leads me to believe that the leadership sees a potential for specialization in regards to weapons capability for the two vessels (namely, the 052 series and 054 series).

Click to expand...

My point stands -- I think you are seeing patterns that aren't there.

Also, I'm not sure why you are generalizing all the 052 variants into "052 series" -- clearly 052, 052B, 052C, 052D are all vastly different ships and are really their own ship classes. They differ vastly with regards to armament.

My original post was asserting that the new 1130 on the 054A confirms its potential role as a specialized missile defense ship, rather than a change of role altogether. I hope that clears things up.

Click to expand...

It really doesn't change my response.

1130 is only a CIWS, all it offers to 054A is better self defence against leakers.
It does not make it more "specialized" as a missile defense ship, because it cannot defend against missiles for other ships in a formation.
In other words, improved CIWS for any ship (including 730, 1130, HQ-10, Phalanx, RAM, etc) only serves to improve the ship's own survivability and last ditch defense against close in threats.

You make it sound like improving from 730 to 1130 suddenly gives 054A improved anti missile defense at ranges where they can defend other ships with, which I've made clear, isn't the case.