PLAN close in weapon

IMO the future is a combination of large-bore, either regenerative injection liquid propellant with ETC as on the Crusader or railguns with HVPs for the main gun, optimized for CMD, terminal BMD and counter-air out to 20km or so plus a laser-based CIWS for near-infinite point suppresion and can deny enemy optical-based sensors which should translates to some limited sat denial, maybe even ASAT if lasers can evolve to be that strong. For now though, the PLAN if they are upgrading their CIWS should be looking at better fire control for their CIWS. A system like the updated Type 1130 depicted on a recent Type 054B render should suffice. FnF missiles are expensive, lacks the required lethality and requires locking + a min range. Sabots are plentiful and cheap, plus you can store a shitload of them. 10000 rounds of tungsten APDS on a continous belt or even a linkless feed would be overkill for any close-range engagement. No need to change that, really. Anything more and you might as well use a CAMM or 9M100 or whatever the 5-5-5 is.

Edit: do we have a thread for PLA naval main guns guys

Its no co-incidence that PLAN is the only navy that does regular live fire exercises with supersonic target drones and is also the only navy that requires insane RPM from its CISW (far beyond the norm) that fire tungsten sabot rounds, as opposed to HE that most other navies use.

If a high supersonic missile slipped past all your layered missile defences to get within CIWS range, you don’t want to be wasting precious seconds messing around with fuses, variable propellants or penny pinching about munitions costs. You have to throw enough lead (or tungsten in this case) at it fast enough to thoroughly shred it with one burst. Because at that speed and at that range, one burst is all you will get, and a normal kill isn’t enough since even large missile debris can still be crippling to a warship at that speed and distance, especially to its radars and other sensors.

yeetmyboi said:

lacks the required lethality and requires locking + a min range.

Click to expand...

Any basis for the lack of lethality claim against missiles?

CIWS also have a lock time with their radars for an active radar track and CIWS type missiles have dual mode guidance which means the missile should have a similar engagement times. In fact the gun CIWS may have longer as they have to engage the missile until it's destroyed while the missile based system can engage another incoming missile and re-engage only when the interceptor has missed.

The minimum ranges of such small missiles are very small and engagements at such ranges would have a significant chance of knocking out key components already from the incoming missile exploding.

plawolf said:

Its no co-incidence that PLAN is the only navy that does regular live fire exercises with supersonic target drones and is also the only navy that requires insane RPM from its CISW (far beyond the norm) that fire tungsten sabot rounds, as opposed to HE that most other navies use.

If a high supersonic missile slipped past all your layered missile defences to get within CIWS range, you don’t want to be wasting precious seconds messing around with fuses, variable propellants or penny pinching about munitions costs. You have to throw enough lead (or tungsten in this case) at it fast enough to thoroughly shred it with one burst. Because at that speed and at that range, one burst is all you will get, and a normal kill isn’t enough since even large missile debris can still be crippling to a warship at that speed and distance, especially to its radars and other sensors.

Click to expand...

Personally, I always thought it a bit weird - first Soviet/Russian Navy and now PLAN.
Model threat for both is subsonic and quite fragile(and multiple bursts before the final continuous fire are doable), not sturdy supersonic anti-ship monsters with armored warheads.

The exception is SM-6 - but how effective CIWS is against those in the first place?

Gloire_bb said:

Personally, I always thought it a bit weird - first Soviet/Russian Navy and now PLAN.
Model threat for both is subsonic and quite fragile(and multiple bursts before the final continuous fire are doable), not sturdy supersonic anti-ship monsters with armored warheads.

The exception is SM-6 - but how effective CIWS is against those in the first place?

Click to expand...

Well, it’s prudent to future-proof your warships to prepare to deal with known, existing weapons that your opponent is, or rather, should be able to produce as well. After all, it takes a hell of a lot less time and effort to roll out a new AShM than to drag all your warships back to dry dock for a CIWS refit.

With CIWS being literally the last line of defence for your expensive and highly valuable capital ships, and the relatively tiny additional costs involved, overkill is infinity preferably to being caught short.

plawolf said:

Well, it’s prudent to future-proof your warships to prepare to deal with known, existing weapons that your opponent is, or rather, should be able to produce as well. After all, it takes a hell of a lot less time and effort to roll out a new AShM than to drag all your warships back to dry dock for a CIWS refit.

With CIWS being literally the last line of defence for your expensive and highly valuable capital ships, and the relatively tiny additional costs involved, overkill is infinity preferably to being caught short.

Click to expand...

Well, also makes sense.

Just hope the practical experience of a maritime conflict won't be like the ww2, when everyone had to urgently bolt on as many CIWS as possible, into every empty piece of deck available...

Gloire_bb said:

Personally, I always thought it a bit weird - first Soviet/Russian Navy and now PLAN.
Model threat for both is subsonic and quite fragile(and multiple bursts before the final continuous fire are doable), not sturdy supersonic anti-ship monsters with armored warheads.

The exception is SM-6 - but how effective CIWS is against those in the first place?

Click to expand...

Agree with @plawolf.

Besides, there is the Brahmos, which is a supersonic missile.

Who knows if the PLAN be facing the Indian Navy in case of war in the IndoPac theater - Whether in the Indian Ocean (when escorting shipping convoys between West Asia and China to protect against blockade by the Indian Air Force and the Indian Navy) or in the SCS (when the Indian Navy feels cheeky enough to venture into the region in order to fight China alongside the US and their puppies) - Or both.

plawolf said:

Its no co-incidence that PLAN is the only navy that does regular live fire exercises with supersonic target drones and is also the only navy that requires insane RPM from its CISW (far beyond the norm) that fire tungsten sabot rounds, as opposed to HE that most other navies use.

If a high supersonic missile slipped past all your layered missile defences to get within CIWS range, you don’t want to be wasting precious seconds messing around with fuses, variable propellants or penny pinching about munitions costs. You have to throw enough lead (or tungsten in this case) at it fast enough to thoroughly shred it with one burst. Because at that speed and at that range, one burst is all you will get, and a normal kill isn’t enough since even large missile debris can still be crippling to a warship at that speed and distance, especially to its radars and other sensors.

Click to expand...

How good are these tungsten munitions from CIWS against hypersonic missiles with a thick armor piercing cap followed by HE payload? Do these CIWS can even pierce that cap and detonate the HE behind, or cause enough shredding to the cap that it won't pose danger to ship hull? Whenever i imagine CIWS or AHEAD system being effective its usually against the subsonic more squishy/stealth western missile. Now we are seeing a big hypersonic missiles with ramjets and hugely armored warheads with at least 4-6 inches of high density/hardness alloys in front of HE capsule.

JonnyJalapeno said:

How good are these tungsten munitions from CIWS against hypersonic missiles with a thick armor piercing cap followed by HE payload? Do these CIWS can even pierce that cap and detonate the HE behind, or cause enough shredding to the cap that it won't pose danger to ship hull? Whenever i imagine CIWS or AHEAD system being effective its usually against the subsonic more squishy/stealth western missile. Now we are seeing a big hypersonic missiles with ramjets and hugely armored warheads with at least 4-6 inches of high density/hardness alloys in front of HE capsule.

Click to expand...

What’s more heavily armoured, tanks or AShMs? The 1130’s closest western counterpart is the GAU8 avenger found on the A10, which is designed to kill tanks, and with an API round, can penetrate between 55-76mm of RHS at 30 degrees.

The biggest difference is the 1130 can put out 11,000 rpm, which is nearly 3 times what the GAU8 can. This beast is designed to throw out enough tungsten to shred an incoming missile as thoroughly and completely as possible to minimise the chance of even debris hitting the ship.

If the opportunity ever arrises, this thing can probably bore a hole clean through another capital warship ship in seconds.

Gloire_bb said:

Well, also makes sense.

Just hope the practical experience of a maritime conflict won't be like the ww2, when everyone had to urgently bolt on as many CIWS as possible, into every empty piece of deck available...

Click to expand...

Nah, shouldn't be a thing now cuz the CIWS like the 1130 shouldn't be that easy to 'just bolt on' as it would need cables, wires and space (that goes underneath it, into the ship).