CIWS

>>34146840
Tell me, when was the last time the roaches had a good idea (ignoring westernization of kebab land)?

>>34146840
I don't know if that's the best way but it seems like some sort of defense against UAVs is a good idea

>m113 derived vehicle
>big turret

Oh is this a drop in system for their APCs?

File: tmp_14308-gty-erdogan-trump-presser-ps-170516_12x5_1600-523653607.jpg (140KB, 1600x669px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1600x669px

>>34146877
>>34146877
Deciding to cooperate with Trump instead of calling him a sexist, racist and islamophobic?

>>34146840
I personally think any group of more than a few armored vehicles should have a CIWS vehicle with them to deal with things like missiles and aircraft. Being able to take down a missile barrage that would have wiped your tank platoon is incredibly useful. If you think of a tank platoon like a single unit like a boat, it makes perfect sense to have CIWS in it.

>>34146840
Overall it seems like a really useful system for tank mechanized troops at the brigade level and above.

What's the fire rate and caliber?

>>34146877
>Tell me, when was the last time the roaches had a good idea (ignoring westernization of kebab land)?

Getting close to Putin and Trump but still staying in NATO seems like a good idea to me, it lets them play all sides to their advantage. Even if Trump destroys Americas position as leader of NATO.

>>34146840
It's not a bad idea per se. It is a locally dependent one.

A mega-army like the USA fighting a giant (Iraq 1.0...) war can afford to buy area defense like Patriots and leapfrog them forward because it's rich and competent and big.

If your army is two out of three, or 1 out of 3, low-level AA suddenly becomes a lot more important. And in that case, making it mobile is just common sense.

>>34146840
Isn't it very expensive and fragile solution? Such vehicles are more apriopriate for second-line defense and when based on wheeled vehicles.

>>34146963
Turkey has an entire series of modded and upgraded M113s as their common chassis.

>>34147330
Dual airbursting 35mms with about 4km range. ROF is 1100 RPM, but I don't know if that's for each or both guns together.

The default unit is 3 gun vehicles and a command vehicle.

>>34146840
It's not a bad idea.

But wouldn't it make more sense to put in on more "disposable" platform?

>>34146840
>Turks
three words: israeli air power

anything that lobs a bunch of fast large metal projectiles in the air can cause a problem

>>34147695
>Dual airbursting 35mms with about 4km range. ROF is 1100 RPM, but I don't know if that's for each or both guns together.

It's 1100 rounds from each barrel

>"The turret is armed with two stabilised 35mm KDC cannons capable of firing high-explosive incendiary (HE-I) and target practice-tracer (TP-T) and air burst ammunition. Each barrel of the 35mm gun can fire 1,100 rounds a minute."

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/korkut-self-propelled-air-defence-gun-system

>>34147695
>>34148790
1100 is the combined rate of fire of both 35mm Oerlikon guns.

>>34148848
I take it the this site http://www.army-technology.com/projects/korkut-self-propelled-air-defence-gun-system that states 1100 rounds from each barrel is wrong.

>>34148973
Correct, each gun has a 550 rpm rate of fire. 1100 is faster than their 35mm revolver autocannon.

>>34146840

Dat radar....

THICCA THAN A BRICC

>>34149516
Probably armoured so that is protected from small arm fire.

>>34146840
>vehicle based CIWS
Around here we call them SPAAGs.