Who would win 1 v 1

>>34366602
The one that so far hasn't allowed a slow flying target drone to ram itself into the bridge.

>>34366693
and which one would that be

File: Screen-Shot-2013-11-19-at-12.48.17-PM.png (83KB, 624x305px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 624x305px

>>34366714
https://news.usni.org/2013/12/30/navy-six-months-repairs-drone-struck-ship-will-cost-30-million

>>34366722
well that's embarrassing.

>The Navy has also still not said if Chancellorsville’s two Phalanx Close-in Weapon Systems (CIWS) had been activated and armed for the exercise.

So basically >>34366693 you don't even know if Phalanx was even on or tracking or loaded or armed.

>>34366761
Except that's exactly why they're unwilling to tell the CIWS' state at the time. Because it failed miserably. What reason would they have to tell the press the CIWS was not armed if that was the truth?

>>34366761
>CIWS not armed
"Nah it's fine everyone we didn't even have them on."
>CIWS armed and fucked up
"Well fuck, this is embarrassing... uhh no comment?"

>>34366804
>>34366771
>>34366761

They weren't armed. They are never armed in training. Do you even know what those things fucking do? It's a goddamn autonomous system that fires 20mm AP with a distressing fucking tendency to, hitting a target or no, fly on to fuck up someone's day, somewhere. They get armed when the ship is secured for immediate action.

>>34366819
Or you know, when its testing the goddamn CIWS.
>The collision of the Northrop Grumman BQM-74 target drone with the ship was part of a test of the Navy’s Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) for the installation of the Chancellorsville’s Baseline 9 Aegis combat system.
Why do you think the drone was in position to ram the ship in the first place? They were testing the systems and they fucking failed.

>>34366602
RAM would beat those 2 on 1

>>34366819
This.

Saying a CIWS did not engage during a peace time exercise that it was not involved in is stupid as fuck.

That said...

>>34366602
The Kashtan is more capable, but takes up far more deckspace, tonnage, needs subdeck space for reloading, and most importantly needs the ships FCS system, and depending on the upgrade the ships radar to work.

The phalanx is far less capable, but takes up far less deckspace, way less tonnage, no deckspace, can run off emergency power, and it's main advantage is it needs nothing but itself to operate, it has radar, FCS, everything built in. SEARAM is the natural evolution, and makes it plenty viable again for modern anti ship threats. CRAM (land based phalanx) is also very good.

>>34366825
Phalanx exists outside of aegis, friend. It does not rely on it at all. Furthermore in testing the missile or stand in is NEVER aimed directly at the ship.

You are right atop mount stupid right now.

>>34366839
>no deckspace,
No subdeck space*

>>34366844
>Phalanx exists outside of aegis, friend. It does not rely on it at all.
And what other system were they testing with low-flying, close distance drones? Do you suppose they'd fire missiles at it? The 76mm guns are of course an option, but then those failed as well.

>>34366825

>Thinks you test the CIWS by literally having drones try to ram the boat.

Aegis testing ain't CIWS testing and they would never arm the CIWS outside of immediate action or a test of the CIWS.

>>34366602
The one that is installed in more than 10 ships in every single sea, is used in countries around the world and has seen some actual use and was so good that was deployed in a land version to protect bases from mortars.

The other is called chestnut in russian.

>>34366849
Point me to where I said the drone was meant to ram the boat, please.

>>34366844
So they were testing the AEGIS, why was there a drone flying so close to the ship, such that it collided with the ship 4 seconds after losing control? Shouldn't the target drones be coming in from tens of miles out in order for aegis to track and shoot at it?

>>34366847
>What system were they testing?

Radar. Some lucky guy would get to shoot simulated sparrows at it.

>>34366861
Yeah, whatever you say, Burger.

>>34366856
>Aegis to track and shoot it.

The radar is powerful but it's not a fucking death beam, Henry. The drone wasn't where it was supposed to be. A normal flight path would not intersect with the fucking boat, and Aegis is not a gun. It doesn't shoot anything.

Having it fly near the ship lets you see if four different radar systems, panoramic IR and LIDAR all track the object and build a coherent picture.

>>34366865
Russians truly are the kings of the sea. In the last 60 years they have destroyed more warship tonnage in action then any other nation.

File: 1492411806891.jpg (42KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x500px

>>34366874
>m-muh vatnik
Both Vatniks and Burgers are delusional retards. It's like watching a bunch of madmen in an asylum arguing about which one of them is Jesus Christ.

>>34366602
Whichever shot first. So greedo.

>>34366882
At least the delusional fucks know what they are talking about, just pretend the other guy is inferior.

You are the ignorant retard interjecting himself, which is worse.

File: 1272887131864.jpg (37KB, 660x415px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 660x415px

>>34366771
>>34366804
>>34366825
Can you even read the source? It states:
>four second warning the target controllers at Point Mugu range had lost control of the BQM-74 before the drone struck the ship.

The drone operatos lost control and it slammed into the ship. Ship crew could have been having a cup of tea or a chat. It only states drone control was lost, clearly they did not want it to hit the ship.

Drone could also have been tracked, targeted and "destroyed" in simulation then it lost control and kept going into the ship.

lol at thinking they would actually fly the drone AT the ship instead of over it

Even if they were testing the CIWS systems, they wouldn't have destroyed the drone. During testing of these kinda systems, the gunner/system is supposed to shoot close to the drone, and not to directly target the drone. The drone has systems on board that verify how close the munitions came and then people on shore use this data to see if the test was a success. If the drone controllers lost control of the drone and it became unresponsive, then you basically have a massive lawn dart heading towards the ship with a gunner/system trained not to hit it. Military drones are expensive, they aren't as simple as clay pigeons

>>34366903
Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Get the fuck out. Han obviously shot first, give a fuck about the Lucas retcon.

File: 0f850b48b4834935598f1c629a42e8bf.jpg (1MB, 1676x1227px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1676x1227px

>>34366602
Neither.

>>34367018
Reminds me of the ways that the USAF went about trying to get as much use out of the QF-4 fleet as they could. At one point they'd strap what amounted to propane tanks to the wing ends in order to attempt to divert Sidewinders to explode further away from the craft.

File: c9c.jpg (42KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x376px

>>34366903
YOU WILL DELET THIS AND YOU WILL DELET THIS NOW