PLAN close in weapon

kwaigonegin said:

since ammo storage is housed within the gun chassis itself, at 10,000 rpm it's going to take just just a few seconds to exhaust all the rounds. For comparison sake the ammo drum on Phalanx stores 'only' 1500 rounds or about 20 seconds worth at maximum rate.
Assuming similar size drum it would take less than 7 seconds before it's empty.

Click to expand...

Faster firing rate allows the same number of rounds to be fired at a shorter burst. In the end it's not just the number of rounds available that count, but also the number of rounds that can be fired per target per unit time. The higher the concentration, the higher the chance of the target getting hit.

what is the probability of Phalanx and this Type 1030 hit Harpoon/Exocet/YJ-62/Sunburn ... let's assume only one missile fired

antiterror13 said:

what is the probability of Phalanx and this Type 1030 hit Harpoon/Exocet/YJ-62/Sunburn ... let's assume only one missile fired

Click to expand...

I have nothing to back my claim up, so this is pure speculation.

Assuming all system functioned normally, I would say, the chance of taking out one single missile is pretty high. The CIWS will keep on tracking the missile and the bullets it fired and merge their trajectory. It will keep on firing until the missile is destroyed.

Re: China's Type 1030 CIWS fires over 10,000 rounds/min.

no_name said:

What if it's simply two weapon sharing the same 12 barrel set but firing two rounds at the same time, ie diagonally opposite each other?

This means that the new 12 barrel weapon can fire at twice the rate of a six-barrel weapon, while having half the rotational rate and the same cooling time for each barrel before next firing

Click to expand...

Interesting possibility you brought up regarding having 2 firing mechanisms. It is entirely possible, although the engineering part of it will be quite challenging since firing mechanisms (firing chamber, loading mechanisms, etc) tends to be quite bulky. To fit in 2 sets of such mechanisms within a turret is possible in a large turret. Hence, the dimensions of this new turret need to be examined in comparison with the older type 730 to have a better idea as to the difference in size and whether there is enough space for 2 sets of firing mechanisms.

As to the point about the firing trajectory of projectiles from CIWS with 2 firing mechanisms, I don't think it matters that much since the size of the target it is firing at is so much larger than the separation between the barrels (for parallel firing arcs).

Surely a gun with two firing mechanisms is twice as likely to jam?

delft said:

Surely a gun with two firing mechanisms is twice as likely to jam?

Click to expand...

Well, you can see it as redundancy. If 1 firing mechanism jams, there is the other independent firing mechanism that can continue firing. That is provided that each has its own loading system and are entirely independent of one another.

Re: China's Type 1030 CIWS fires over 10,000 rounds/min.

Spartan95 said:

As to the point about the firing trajectory of projectiles from CIWS with 2 firing mechanisms, I don't think it matters that much since the size of the target it is firing at is so much larger than the separation between the barrels (for parallel firing arcs).

Click to expand...

I think if the firing mechanisms are placed in opposite sides of the gun, then having an odd number of barrels would allow two barrels to fire alternatively, and you wouldn't have interference between trajectories.

Re: China's Type 1030 CIWS fires over 10,000 rounds/min.

Low IQ said:

Twin barrels firing?
Correct me if I am wrong, Wouldn't that create aim point problem?

For example :
Parallel :

Focal :

Also, 11 or 12 barrels design - wouldn't it be too heavy? thus it would either have to sacrifice barrel length (twice shorter barrel length, and thus accuracy) or less maneuverable (being twice heavier than normal 6 barrels CIWS) thus less effective against highly agile supersonic maneuverable targets?

Lastly, twin barrels firing at the same time wouldn't it also create a massive recoil (further reducing the accuracy)?

Click to expand...

Low IQ said:

Twin barrels firing?
Correct me if I am wrong, Wouldn't that create aim point problem?

For example :
Parallel :

Focal :

Also, 11 or 12 barrels design - wouldn't it be too heavy? thus it would either have to sacrifice barrel length (twice shorter barrel length, and thus accuracy) or less maneuverable (being twice heavier than normal 6 barrels CIWS) thus less effective against highly agile supersonic maneuverable targets?

Lastly, twin barrels firing at the same time wouldn't it also create a massive recoil (further reducing the accuracy)?

Click to expand...

Well the Russians managed to work with this layout:



So the problem is not as hard as it might seem to be.

And really I wonder if they even bother to align the firing paths. If we assume an angular error margin of 0.1 degrees while the gun is firing, the bullets will be spread apart by a maximum of about 6 meters by the time they are 3.6Km out, the maximum effective range for the Phalanx system. It's really by brute firing rate that they are hitting their targets at all, even with path correction.

I'm just wondering whether this is the chinese equivalent answer to the above russian system in terms of firepower, and the missile (FL-3000?) will be the complement like the missiles for the russian system, but more robust and complete. We can see if the missile and gun are parts of the combined gun/missile system. I wonder if for each direction placement they will have both gun and missile mounts, so it is a gun/missile combined 360 degree coverage.

edit: it seems like only the stern end will have gun type CIWS.

And really I wonder if they even bother to align the firing paths. If we assume an angular error margin of 0.1 degrees while the gun is firing, the bullets will be separated by a maximum of about 6 meters by the time they are 3.6Km out, the maximum effective range for the Phalanx system. It's really by brute firing rate that they are hitting their targets at all, even with path correction.

Click to expand...

That's right. CIWS work by throwing up a wall of bullets into the path of the missile, not really intending for any one bullet to hit the missile dead on. Think of a hose spraying water, you don't have to aim it directly at the target to get the target wet.

Spartan95 said:

Well, you can see it as redundancy. If 1 firing mechanism jams, there is the other independent firing mechanism that can continue firing. That is provided that each has its own loading system and are entirely independent of one another.

Click to expand...

I would rather have two independent guns.