Next Generation DDG and FFG thread (after 055, 052D, 054B)

[Dante80]

The main problem is the optimization point. CIWS tries to throw out as much ammo as possible, while keeping the mount without unnecessary weight up (inertia problem). I.e. it's built for high-rate automatic fire, but doesn't have all that much ammo.
Furthermore, specific installation limits angles dead ahead.

PLAN CIWS have adjustable/variable RoF cap, with different profiles . Going down to less than 1000 rpm.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The HQ-9 lineage was originally from Soviet SAMs, which did have less advanced radar electronics, so they compensated with a larger warhead and therefore larger missile.

But we can see that the H/HQ-9C is a significantly smaller missile.
And we also know that China does have world-class radar seekers on its AAMs.

It isn't just advancedness, it's the chosen setup.
There are engineering trade-offs involved, which broadly remainin consistent, either then or now.

IMHO, we're talking 3 different missiles in purpose.

HQ-9B family - full range atmospheric solution, also capable as a DP weapon(i.e. asuv/strike). Uses full cell.
HQ-9C - area high altitude/hypersonic ABM interceptor with extended footprint, but also capable enough within atmosphere. Increased volume(at least 2/cell), matching current trends.
555 - local catch-up, optimized for volume processing of atmospheric and small targets. Increased volume(4/cell).

PLAN CIWS have adjustable/variable RoF cap, with different profiles . Going down to less than 1000 rpm.

Yes, but the problem is that optimally this mission needs a very high accuracy, single shot capable gun with immediate switch of feed. 1000 is still a lot, both in waste and in complicating observating results of previous volley.
UAVs completely emptying CIWS (gun, missile) is a recurring problem over the last decade.

Ideal "close in" shell is IMHO a mix of a few 30mm and 12.7 turrets. In 2000-2010s it was KBA, but now IMHO Lionfish family is the benchmark.