PLA Navy news, pics and videos

Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Liaoning and her strike group are doing their thing around Japan again. This time it's a really big strike group consisting of:
  • 001 carrier 16 Liaoning
  • 055 large destroyer 101 Nanchang
  • 052D destroyer 117 Xining
  • 052D destroyer 118 Urumqi
  • 052D destroyer 120 Chengdu
  • 052C destroyer 151 Zhengzhou
  • 054A frigate 531 Xiangtian
  • 901 fast combat support ship 901 Hulunhu
csg.jpg
ezgif-3-73d8dd3049.jpg
ezgif-3-21982b84fd.jpg
 
S

supersnoop

Colonel
Registered Member
Temstar said:
That's to put it mildly. According to Shilao and Yankee in recent discussion regarding the loss of Moskva PLAN holds AK630 in poor regard and gave it the derisive nickname "jellybean launcher". Its accuracy is really bad and they put that down to its fire control radar being separately mounted on the ship instead of integrated into its turret like every other CIWS.

There's apparently an incident where in a joint exercise where the PLAN had a drone fly pass Russian ships for them to practice their CIWS and their AK-630 fired a full burst and hit nothing but air. The drone had to be commanded to turn around and make another pass before it was it.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the advantage of on-turret sensors for CIWS vs. off-turret? The H/PJ-12/13 can be installed either way. On the front line ships it is usually on-turret.

Brings me to my next question, if on-turret is better, why doesn't a SeaRAM version of HQ-10 exist?
 
P

PeoplesPoster

Junior Member
Helius said:
2x5,000rpm is still 10,000rpm. If you were to bunch 10x1,000rpm guns together, they're 10,000rpm all the same.

Same difference between 1 gun doing the job of 10 vs 10 guns doing the job of 1.
Click to expand...
anything with two guns offset from each other does not make sense because now you have to calculate for convergence. Just added complexity.
 
Helius

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
PeoplesPoster said:
anything with two guns offset from each other does not make sense because now you have to calculate for convergence. Just added complexity.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what the commenter I replied to was on about though. The issue wasn't about the quality of the CIWS.

They were questioning the rate of fire of AK-630 vs AK-630M1-2 (which is essentially AK-630 x2) and how those guns compared to the PLAN versions, again concerning rate of fire.

So I pointed out two AK-630s of 5,000rpm i.e. an AK-630M1-2 would deliver the same number of rounds per minute as a single Type 1130 of 10,000rpm. That was all.

Presumably they thought an AK-630M1-2 is only capable of 5,000rpm since each gun is 5,000rpm, which is an elementary mathematical mistake from the get go, but again they presumably refused to own up to it and resorted to trolling instead. :rolleyes:
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
ougoah said:
You two need to settle down with this stupid disagreement.

All that needs to be said is that 730 gets 5800rpm from 7 barrels, AK630 gets 5000rpm from 6 barrels, 1130 gets 10000rpm from 11 barrels.

2x AK630s mounted into one single unit is able to deliver 10000rpm from 10 barrels.

One of you is talking from the perspective of which guns system is "better" in rate and the other guy's talking about CIWS unit. AK630's per barrel rate is higher.

None of this is everything with a CIWS.
Click to expand...

You mean 12 barrels, since each AO-18 --- thats what you call the gatling gun, AK-630 is the complete banana --- has six barrels and there is two of them. That's 12 barrels for 10,000 rpm.

In addition there is a qualitative improvement as the guns are not AO-18, but AO-18K, which might have longer barrels and can use sabot. The further improvement is now called AK-630M2, with the guns now further called AO-1ram.

AO-18K and KD are also used in dual on the Kashtan and Pantsyr.

There is also the weight of the turret, and I would assume the Type 1130 would weigh less than any dual AO-18K sets. I don't have the exact weight figures however so I can be corrected.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
wssth0306 said:
The argument is , in order to have a higher hit chance you can either increase the fire rate or have a better fire control system.

Note the time these CIWS was developed , AK-630, Phalanx , Goalkeeper entered service in 1980s , the threats they were desinged for has changed since then.
Type 730 , 1130 entered service in 2010s , they too choose the way of higher fire rate to combat faster moving missiles.
US choose to go with SeaRam in the recent years for the same reason.

Also note , PLA navy has AK630 only on type 022 , and 2 type 054,which mean the PLA didn't think that this system was as good as the 730 .And if Wikipedia is right
View attachment 88144
the improvements that the Chinese made is in line of what I said, 5000 RPM HE from the AK-630 isn't enough.
Click to expand...

H/PJ-13 is used in far more than that. All the Type 071 LPD has four each. The turret is also mounted on every Type 903 replenishment ship and yes, on both Type 901 AOE.

The two refitted Sovremenny kept their AK-630 although internally they might have changed the gun to the Chinese counterpart of the AO18. But I also said might. The fact that its kept still says something about the guns. What is changed is the MR123 fire control radar has been changed to the Type 349 (similar to 347G but has a flattened cone dome). Type 349 is the radar also used in the Type 072, 903 and 901 ships for their H/PJ-13.

The refitted Type 053H3 uses a Type 730 housing with the gun from the H/PJ-13 (Chinese AO-18K). Once again a Type 349 serves as fire control replacing the 347G used with the previous 37mm.

Once again the AO-18K and its Chinese equivalent are capable of using sabots, although in exercises they might be using up the older stocks of HE ammunition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top