PLAN close in weapon
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Brrrrrrrrraaaaaa!An image of a Type 1130 taken from an interesting perspective.
I see China is investing in these monster 10 barrel CIWS, is there any comparison of cost and efficiency between these kinds of systems vs a programmable munition AA system like Rheinmetall AHEAD? Even if the projectiles are dumb, surely the cost is similar vs a magnetically programmable fuze munition used in lesser saturation?
There are rumors that a next generation, equation changing, CIWS is coming. Some thought it would appear on the 054B, or maybe the new 055 under construction.
Interesting, all i can read is even more barrells like here
while i see few modern navies adapting this gun already
It seems that the AHEAD gun could satisfy smaller nations where a dual purpose gun could be useful on smaller patrol ships, while dedicated anti-air/anti-ship missile systems will still use gattling type CIWS. Therefore from this small sample of data, one could conclude that programmable munition CIWS is not more effective than saturation CIWS. The best of both worlds imho would be gattling CIWS with programmable ammo
Prohibitely expensive probably.I think they might be heading towards electric guns with smart ammo as you say. I think the game changing aspect is mainly the speed at which the projectile will travel. We should find out soon.Interesting, all i can read is even more barrells like here
while i see few modern navies adapting this gun already
It seems that the AHEAD gun could satisfy smaller nations where a dual purpose gun could be useful on smaller patrol ships, while dedicated anti-air/anti-ship missile systems will still use gattling type CIWS. Therefore from this small sample of data, one could conclude that programmable munition CIWS is not more effective than saturation CIWS. The best of both worlds imho would be gattling CIWS with programmable ammo
Edit: I am expecting single barrel gun to be main CIWS weapon.
Last edited:
20 barrel ? 4 shoting 16 recharging ? Complexity can become a problem...Interesting, all i can read is even more barrells like here
while i see few modern navies adapting this gun already
It seems that the AHEAD gun could satisfy smaller nations where a dual purpose gun could be useful on smaller patrol ships, while dedicated anti-air/anti-ship missile systems will still use gattling type CIWS. Therefore from this small sample of data, one could conclude that programmable munition CIWS is not more effective than saturation CIWS. The best of both worlds imho would be gattling CIWS with programmable ammo
Interesting, all i can read is even more barrells like here
while i see few modern navies adapting this gun already
It seems that the AHEAD gun could satisfy smaller nations where a dual purpose gun could be useful on smaller patrol ships, while dedicated anti-air/anti-ship missile systems will still use gattling type CIWS. Therefore from this small sample of data, one could conclude that programmable munition CIWS is not more effective than saturation CIWS. The best of both worlds imho would be gattling CIWS with programmable ammo
Smaller European nations are not expecting to be attacked by the US and their allies. Facing this kind of threat, perhaps the calculus is they need all the barrels they can get.
After all, it’s not like they do not have 35mm AHEAD type gun, it’s already in service with the army.
The future of the CIWS systems are not more barrels or programmable ammunition but missile based like the RAM and HQ-10 or DEWs. Engagement ranges are better, better multi target capabilities and better magazine depth (debatable depending on how they calculate average ammunition expenditure per projectile engaged). I don't know why people are still obsessed with using guns with programmable ammo for AA, counter UAS and counter missile duty. The only areas where guns are clearly superior to missiles are counter artillery, cost and ambushes by small missile boats.