PLAN close in weapon

Geographer

Geographer

Junior Member
The bullets are proximity-fused anyways so they'll explode from centimeters to meters infront of the missile and throw up a wall of hot metal fragments. Hopefully some of those fragments pierce the missile shell and detonate the fuel, or blow off a control fin, or destroy the radar in front. That is the general idea of CIWS.
 
I

i.e.

Senior Member
Geographer said:
The bullets are proximity-fused anyways so they'll explode from centimeters to meters infront of the missile and throw up a wall of hot metal fragments. Hopefully some of those fragments pierce the missile shell and detonate the fuel, or blow off a control fin, or destroy the radar in front. That is the general idea of CIWS.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the rounds used by 730 or its derivative are prox-fused.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Bullets have very little to do with accuracy.

Modern 50 cal sniper rifles can reportedly hit a man sized target 2km out in one shot, which is what the effective range of most gun based CIWS are anyways.

If they wanted to, they can certainly make a gun based CIWS accurate enough to bullseye head sized targets at 2km or more. The reason they do not and go with weight of fire is because of the issue of targeting.

Being able to hit at whatever you aim at is not so amazing if you cannot target something accurately enough to aim the gun where the missile is at.

There is actually problems when machine guns become too accurate. During WWI, they actually reduced the accuracy of machine guns so you get a bigger spread to cover more targets.

Its a similar case here with modern gun based CIWS. But designing them to be less accurate but have a huge ROF, you lower the requirements for the targeting computers/sensors and also reduce the requirements for the motors that turn the turret.

As for reloads, well there is no physical limitation that states only a thousand rounds can be put onto an ammo belt. They could make the belt as long as they want and have tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds ready to fire if they wanted to. The limitation is on the gun barrels and how long they can keep firing for before over heating.
 
Geographer

Geographer

Junior Member
There is actually problems when machine guns become too accurate. During WWI, they actually reduced the accuracy of machine guns so you get a bigger spread to cover more targets.
Click to expand...
How important is the length of barrel to accuracy? Do you get diminishing returns to accuracy as barrel length increases?
 
IronsightSniper

IronsightSniper

Junior Member
plawolf said:
Bullets have very little to do with accuracy.

Modern 50 cal sniper rifles can reportedly hit a man sized target 2km out in one shot, which is what the effective range of most gun based CIWS are anyways.

If they wanted to, they can certainly make a gun based CIWS accurate enough to bullseye head sized targets at 2km or more. The reason they do not and go with weight of fire is because of the issue of targeting.

Being able to hit at whatever you aim at is not so amazing if you cannot target something accurately enough to aim the gun where the missile is at.

There is actually problems when machine guns become too accurate. During WWI, they actually reduced the accuracy of machine guns so you get a bigger spread to cover more targets.

Its a similar case here with modern gun based CIWS. But designing them to be less accurate but have a huge ROF, you lower the requirements for the targeting computers/sensors and also reduce the requirements for the motors that turn the turret.

As for reloads, well there is no physical limitation that states only a thousand rounds can be put onto an ammo belt. They could make the belt as long as they want and have tens or hundreds of thousands of rounds ready to fire if they wanted to. The limitation is on the gun barrels and how long they can keep firing for before over heating.
Click to expand...

Go watch some Kashtan videos on the web, 2 6-barreled 30 mm autocannons firing at well over 10,000 (some say 12,000) RPMs, and watch how much rounds it took to take down a target, it was a very long burst, I can guarantee that.
 
IronsightSniper

IronsightSniper

Junior Member
Deary me, getting touchy are we?

Anywho, the fact that China isn't planning on using Type 730/1130 as the mainline ship borne defense means that they're agreeing with my sentiments about CIWSs.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
That was hardly 'touchy', you are just being over sensitive.

I hope you do realise you cannot just decide something and call it a 'fact', especially not something like what the PLAN is planning to do in the future.

Unless you be some kind of oracle with mystical powers, you cannot know what the PLAN is planned unless they told you, and they most certainly have not made any public announcements about what their future CIWS will be.

There is not enough evidence from observations to prove the PLAN is switching to missile based CIWS from guns, what evidence there is suggests that the PLAN still prefers gun based CIWS or else they would not have developed a brand new gun system and also installed gun CIWS, not missile, on all their latest DDGs and FFGs.

Even if the PLAN did switch, it just proves that missile based systems has become more effective than guns, but it does not say that guns are inherently too inaccurate to be used as CIWS. The many different gun based CIWS employed around the world all proves that your statement is wrong.

So it would appear you are wrong on every level. Quite a feat with so few words.
 
IronsightSniper

IronsightSniper

Junior Member
Everyone upgrades their legacy systems to live out their life span as long as possible, the 1130 is just that prolongation of the 730. The PLAN are even starting to proliferate FL-3000s. Eventually they'll add in a mid-range SAM system along with the FL-3000 close-range SAM system to complement the long range HQ-9 system. Simply speaking, missiles are better than guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top