PLA Anti-Air Gun systems
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Why are using fn6 instead of Fb10A and I know the 30 mm version has ahead rounds by does the 25mm version have ahead rounds?
The 25mm gatling gun (what has been called Type 625, I forget if that is its actual PLA name), has 25mm AHEAD rounds. There was a CCTV7 program on it a year or two back, this is a screencap of that program stating it as so.
I remember the program also had clips of the AHEAD rounds in action but I don't have the video link on me
Programming airburst ammunition, but not strictly AHEAD.The 25mm gatling gun (what has been called Type 625, I forget if that is its actual PLA name), has 25mm AHEAD rounds. There was a CCTV7 program on it a year or two back, this is a screencap of that program stating it as so.
I remember the program also had clips of the AHEAD rounds in action but I don't have the video link on me
It operates on a principle similar to Orbital ATK's programmable airburst fuse, data is loaded while the ammunition is still in the breech, fuse calculates the number of spins the projectile makes to determine detonation
That's true, I suppose AHEAD makes the calculations at the muzzle of the barrel rather than the breech.
Though I've read varying things about the Orbital ATK product (I assume you mean Mk310) about whether its round is programmed at the muzzle or the breech...
Fuze principle is the same, where the data is received can be adjusted according to the needs. Muzzle programming will be more accurate because it will not be affected by factors such as initial velocity and charge temperature, but it is obviously not suitable for 625.
Last edited:
Since the poisonous discussion dropped down, i think it's reasonable to give a simple explanation.
625 was born a few years ago, before fully absorbing current lessons(back then they were still a middle east oddity that no one treated seriously). Furthermore, current lessons itself is floating thing - as we know, main opfor(US army) only did their first official drone bomb drop a few months ago under Hegseth (so much about him being drunkard).
Multi-barrel SPAAG was most probably optimization choice against a single specific main threat - that is, JDAM. AHEAD types were shown to suprisingly struggle against even glide bombs(one would think that wings should be super vulnerable, but, well), and normal american wingless JDAMs are almost unstoppable for splinter fields.
APFSDS directly initiates the warhead, solving the issue.
Situation, of course, changed now - and PLAAF, probably not the least due to close connection to low altitude industry, could react in time.
Yes, 625 optimization point is now off mark, but they stil have HE PROG nonetheless. Things can change, this is normal.
Last edited:
PLA accurately predicted the need for counters to glide bombs, it definitely not off mark with Russia employing UMPKs, Ukraine employing HAMMERs and SDBs, Israel employing SPICEs, only Kashmir 2025 did not see heavy glide bomb usage but that was a short engagement and the initial strike package from India mentioned HAMMERs.
I would argue Type 625 is the best optimized for small UAVs with Sino-AHEAD, probably only outcompeted by PGZ-09, AHEAD equipped systems and other SPAAs with proxy fuses (Bofors L/70) against Shahed equivalents due to better engagement envelope with bigger rounds.
Any smaller caliber would probably run into serious issues with AHEAD lethality ,making them only useful against FPVs that you still don't want to deploy with your troops nearby due to the risk of fragmentation, while anything above 35mm would run into ROF and ammunition capacity issues
The Type 625 is also quite future proof IMO, as they can easily fix the FK-3000's micro missile pack or FB-10As from the HQ-13 onto the FN-16 mounts depending on mission profile.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Except testing has already shown the the 625 is not an effective counter to drones due to range and number of systems and ammo needed to provide adequate protection.
The current best hard kill counters against FPVs are lasers and microwaves.
I can also see automatic shotguns with drum or belt mags being added as an additional addition to the tradition HMG on RWS as more of a last ditch defence. But that’s more for psychological support for moral rather than being truly effective.
For counter drones, I think it will be a similar situation to counter air, where offence is the best defence. You try to shoot down enemy tac air before they spam munitions at you, rather than just wanting to shoot down every bomb and missile coming at you from close range.
For counter drones, I think the preferred approach would be to have your own drone swarm pushing ahead and around your main advance and engaging enemy drones and pilots as they expose themselves to launch.
Terminal defence is basically the same as CIWS for warships. You need to have them, but you really really don’t want to have to actually use them.