Is China's 30mm CIWS objectively better than the United

>>35034501
why would it be? 30mm or 20mm it still does its job of shooting down missiles

File: DHyStzIW0AEgObV.jpg (134KB, 1199x798px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1199x798px

Yes, and their 11 barreled one is even better.

>>35034545

Why is it better? Other than the 50c bonus for your post

>>35034501

A larger round doesn't really help you in this situation because a single hit will do the job. If the 30mm has significantly longer range, then I'd go with that. If not, then 20mm makes more sense just because it is cheaper and easier to for the crew to maintain.

>>35034562
10,000 rounds a minute
97% interception rate against supersonic missiles

>>35034501
Better is subjective.

Phalanx is far lighter, and requires a much smaller electrical and physical footprint. I view that as superior for a last ditch weapon. More space for more effective weapons.

>>35034594
Oh, and requires no other infrastructure on the ship to be effective. It's essentially plug and play.

File: 062019t9aaapadv1s9sfma.jpg (107KB, 930x636px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 930x636px

>>35034545
30mm APDS

>>35034585

Neat. Yeah, I guess it's not surprising that a much newer system which can learn from the Phalanx's lessons would be more effective

File: depopu30_04.jpg (242KB, 750x1152px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 750x1152px

>>35034629
>not DU

>>35034669
>hey Al, wanna know where I'm gonna hide this later?

>>35034688
>the same place those Chinese fellers up the thread aways showed us!

Ours looks like R2-D2. We win.

File: 6723472346.jpg (438KB, 1721x712px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1721x712px

>>35034501

That depends if you want one time use disposable shit for the long term.

>>35034993
You have to change barrels on any machine gun you mongonaut.

>>35034501
At least it doesn't look like a big dildo

>>35035018
eventually yes, not halfway through an engagement and especially not on a multi-ton ship-borne weapon system

>>35035018
>changing barrels of a CWIS at sea while under attack

Wew lad

>>35034993
you never fire even half a minute.

you dont even have that many rounds.

short bursts with high volume is what does the trick.

>>35034993
You DARE insult chinese ANYTHING? I will have you know I'm call the entirely. 50c brigade THIS INSTANT.

>>35035040
>>35035049
You seem to think that's some sort of exceptionally high rate of erosion. It's not. Chinese aren't human, but they're not stupid.

Someone in the know once told me "if the CIWS is firing the ship isn't going to be there much longer"

>b..but muh chinese CIWS is 1000% more effective based on nothing

>>35035049
read your own post again.

it overheats if you fire either longer than a minute or faster than 4200 rd/m for the PJ-12.

both of which are actualy impossible.

>>35035069
Fireing more than 1000 rounds slaging barrels on a 10,000 RPM system? Must be made in China.

>>35035105
with 11 barrels, you have less barrel wear at 10k rof than a 7 barrel one.

are you dumb?

>>35034993

There is no situation in which you'd be firing non-stop for a full minute. Also, why is "640 or 1000" highlighted? I really don't get what the issue is here.

File: 14160507564_d8484f18f0_o.jpg (174KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1200x900px

>>35035105
and thats the reason it has 11 barrels.

goddamn you retard.

>>35035126
>>35035145
>50 centers can't help but reply twice

>>35034501
no because all CIWS are equally shit last ditch missile/fast boat defenses

what really matters is interception with missiles from longer distances, where weapons like the SM-3 reign supreme

>>35035178
Someone who gets it.

>>35035193
So the best CIWS is the one that takes up the least amount of space, infrastructure, and tonnage?

File: ORD_SAM_SeaRAM_Firing_lg.jpg (110KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 750x600px

>>35034501
No

>>35035145
>>35035126
>7 barrel slags at 4k rpm
>11 barrel version is just fine at over twice the RPM

Must be that Chinese logic.

>>35034629
Why would you want AP for anti missile? Wouldn't it make more sense to have proximity fuses?

>>35035207
not him but i guess you could make that argument, that only really matters on smaller vessels though

the phalanx definitely has an advantage in being adaptable for almost any platform

File: 20511696074_1fe75afc3b_o.jpg (269KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1500x1125px

>>35035209
>missilelet

>>35035260
>relying on the ships sensors and not your own

>>35035260
>the TY-90 literally has a smaller warhead, flies slower, and has a shorter range

>>35035260
>having to rely upon shipboard radar to do your job

File: CH DDG 052D.jpg (296KB, 1600x743px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1600x743px

>>35035281
Well, if said ship has a high-rate X-band radar specifically for sea-skimmer search at the top-mast, why not?

>>35035134
6000 is 100 rounds a second. There is only enough bullets for a sustained 6-12 seconds before reloading. There would have to be servicemen on the deck to reload while it actively tracks. There is little time for correction and even less for an error. You will reload 8 times in that minute if manpower and automation was not an issue.

File: FL-3000N_CIWS_3.jpg (182KB, 950x630px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 950x630px

>>35035296
It's not a TY-90

>>35035326
>the ships radar is disabled or sustains battle damage and loses function
>all of your intermediate range defenses are now worthless

>>35035340
It's an enlarged ty-90, to incorporate more seeker methods.

File: 1vuM6_zps2af67f59.jpg (66KB, 950x634px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 950x634px

>>35035340
Seeker head: dual spectral IR and radio-wave homing.

So, far beyond the TY-90.

>>35035340
ok so it still has a smaller warhead, and has a shorter range by almost 3km, but can reach comparable speeds

>>35035326
You're going to have to rewrite your fire control algorithms for every inch you move that missile system in relation to the radar leading to fuck ups.

Initial conditions are quite crucial to twitch reaction missiles like SeaRAM

>>35035344
yeah no.

if you have already suffered damage against your sensors, your ship is lost.

>>35035326
>lose your mast
>lose power
>that radar face takes a bit of shrapnel
>you now lost your entire defensive measures.

Wew

>>35034501
Yes, all other nations have superior CIWS.

Does someone sit inside the dome?

>>35035383
that's bullshit and you know it, you're just pulling mental gymnastics to try and explain away a lack of redundancy in vital systems

>>35035383
Well yeah, if you place all your defensive eggs in one basket.

>>35035399
>redundancy

American ships literally have none. SPY-1 and some old shit like SPG-62s arent "redundancy".

Having three seperate radar sets like the 052D, each capable of fire-control is actually redundancy. On top of that, each weapon can also be guided by EOS.

Holy shit burgers are getting btfo when it comes to navy stuff. Like this is pathetic.

>>35035433
>every defensive weapon system has its own sensor suite
>this is somehow not redundancy

>>35035433
Actually; 4 radars for the 052D

Type 346 main AESA
Type 364 X-band high rate search radar
Type 349A main-gun FCR (same radar as on the Type 730 CIWS)
and the Type 344 on the CIWS itself.

>>35035433
>SPY-1 and some old shit like SPG-62s arent "redundancy".
Well yeah, because if you could separate your foot from your mouth you would know the 62 is steered by the SPY-1.

>American ships literally have none.
They do when it comes to the CIWS.

>three separate radars
doing three separate jobs.

>each weapon can also be guided by EOS.
>each weapon

There goes your foot again.

File: super professional US navy.jpg (114KB, 768x551px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 768x551px

>>35035447
Yeah, American navy tech basically stagnated. All those white elephants like LCS and Zum notwithstanding.

File: DDG_51_Flight_III_Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer_US_Navy_HII_SNA_2017_1.jpg (202KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 640x480px

>>35035467
>CIWS

most Burke-class ships do not even feature any.

And the Burke-III will have not a single one again.

>>35035332

That's fine because you're not going to be doing any sustained fire anyway. Short controlled bursts are king. Remember that the gatling gun is merely a back-up weapon. The ship's missiles are the real show stopper.

>>35034501
It's bigger, makes moar boom, therefore is gooder.

File: DHxqUEFXYAEPfPj.jpg (128KB, 1200x998px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1200x998px

Murrica would wish to have a ship covered in so many different AESAs.

>>35035487
Because as:
>>35035178
said, a CIWS is a latch ditch, throw bullets at it, BS

wow, Chinese shilling really isnt a meme is it? is it just one guy or is there an entire government funded group of these chinks like with Russia?

Let us all unite in the moment of discord to mock the French for not having CIWS on their carrier.

>>35035503
>Cover one ship with panels
>Talk about it endlessly
If only you actually had the digital electronics to back up those radars.

>>35035520

That's wrong. They have defensive missiles.

The US has the best navy of the 1980s.

China has the best navy of the 2010s.

>>35035520
actually theyre the ones who should be mocking us, CIWS is an entirely inferior concept to missiles and just takes up space and resources

>>35034993
the chinese gun is obviously smooth bore. next

>>35035548
>1 yuan has been deposited into your account

>>35034993
If you find yourself in need of firing a CIWS gun for over 1 minute, you're so fuck that only an act of God would save, and He even would berate you for the shitshow you've gotten yourself into.

>>35035487
>most Burke-class ships do not even feature any.
Silly statement. Every Burke has a CWIS, a few flight IIAs were built without but then retrofitted. Even your model has one where every burk does, right on the aft.

>>35035517
They are state funded.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

>>35035433
that's bullshit, every arleigh burke has 3 search radars and main 1 fire control radar, plus the independent systems on all the short and intermediate range defenses

>>35035563
Poor baby burger.

>>35035593
>a navy 80% comprised of frigates, vetts, and fucking gunboats
>best

They need to pay you more.

>>35035531
my bad, I mean to say "gun-based CIWS".

File: wuss poppin b.jpg (72KB, 500x477px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x477px

>>35035583
wait, thats actually a real thing? how fucking pathetic

>>35035608
You are so pathetically retarded that it literally hurts to even accept that I am conversing with you.

File: 222.png (406KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 399x614px

>>35035638

>>35035638
you might be getting a raise for that one!

File: 1604328475378.png (17KB, 420x570px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 420x570px

>>35035368
>smaller warhead,
irrelevant in fragmentation kill (heavy warhead =/= more fragments)

>and has a shorter range by almost 3km
same 9 km range

SeaRAM btfo by sneaky chinese design with smaller warhead/missile

>>35035638
>500 """"ship"""" navy
>1 "carrier"
>zero (0) gators
>zero (0) cruisers
>~29 destroyers

Makes you think.

File: 1496680805178.png (474KB, 567x633px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 567x633px

>>35034501
>Is X objectively better than Y?

Why do people ask stupid fucking questions like this. You may as well just come out and say "Hey people, I don't know anything about warfare and weapons design!"

>>35035680
>irrelevant in fragmentation kill
It means the frag range is far larger.

You tried?

>>35035680
it has a 9km range against subsonic threats, which admittedly covers all US anti-ship cruise missiles, and drops to 6km for supersonic, The seaRAM holds the 9km range for all threats, and also has independent sensors and fcs

>>35035710
>It means the frag range is far larger

fuzing technology limits detonation distance...again, irrelevant

>>35035803
>fuzing technology limits detonation distance
Uhh, yeah, to optimal effects range, which is larger with a bigger warhead.

You tried....again?

>>35035733
>it has a 9km range against subsonic threats, which admittedly covers all US anti-ship cruise missiles, and drops to 6km for supersonic

How much koolaid did you drink?
Speed of target has ZERO effect on engagement distance. Otherwise Patriot, SM-2, S-300...would all specify two performance levels for sub/supersonic targets.

>>35035841
>Speed of target has ZERO effect on engagement distance.
It does for manuvering targets.

>would all specify two performance levels for sub/supersonic targets.

Spoiler alert, there is. It's why an Amraam can splash a cargo aircraft at 180km but not a fighter.

>>35035822
>optimal effects range, which is larger with a bigger warhead
IRRELEVANT because the warhead blows when the fuze senses the target. If you dial up the sensitivity of the fuze to muh optimal range, you run the risk of false detonation.

>>35035913
Wait wait wait.

You think that missiles operate like WWII flak shells?

File: 1497035607034.png (220KB, 456x810px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 456x810px

>>35035922
>Chinese education

File: sm.jpg (55KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x333px

>>35035867
>blah blah blah

looks like you drank the whole punch bowl

>>35035841
>all incoming threats move in a straight line and never maneuver

>missiles don't lose speed and maneuverability as their motors burn out

>>35035943
giving up, nice

>>35035943
Cool story Chang. Come back when you have an actual argument.

Shame you bitched out on the whole India affair; was looking forword to streetshitter on streetshitter violence.

File: litkek.jpg (32KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 512x512px

>>35034585
nice one Chang

>>35035937
No shit, right?

>thinking chinese shit is better than something made in America
Late-stage adolescent contrarianism

>>35034993
>All that shit in red
>The guy who made this doesn't know the difference between cyclic and practical RoF
>He thought this was a howzat
God, /k/ is the stupidest board ever

>>35035976
Come back when you have an actual argument.

>>35035493
Bursts with large volumes of fire are nothing in a defensive situation if there is not enough ammo to sustain the defence with rounds used per target. Increasing the volume of fire only increases success rate without increasing its overall standard of performance. If the gun is not firing then the screen is wide open. Historically Proven.

>>35035548
>Best Navy
>CIWS systems still use APDS instead of HEI-T or Frag-T.

>>35036032
>Trying to default the Chinese and their exhibition of their "innovation".

It is if you have never been lowballed by a chink before.

>>35035841
Depending on course it absolutely does. The engagement distance is determined by the firing solution computer giving an OK. If its coming right for you fast, get that OK sooner.

>>35035487
>ESSM

>>35035363

>Electrical Tape

>>35034501
Probably. Phalanx is old and is even worse than useless.

File: 1504230509024m (2).jpg (27KB, 135x135px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 135x135px

>>35034669
So these are what Hank shoved up my ass last night..

>>35034545
BLLLT

>>35037064
Holy fuck I didn't even notice.

>the actual state of Chinese missiles

>>35037220
Ahahaha well said, m8.

>>35034562
MORE DAKKA! = better

>>35035922
There is 'miss' in missiles.

>>35037225

Because a mock up model thats been mishandled and taped shows the state of actual missiles in service

>>35037617
>this is representive of the missile in question
>oh wait no it's not

Kek

>>35037610
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

So between the chink shills and the vatniks which are the worst?

>>35034993
This is definitely the most retarded newfaggot post I've seen on this board in at least a month.

>>35037702
Chinks, only because they are more numerous and better funded. Both are pure cancer and full retard.

>>35034585
>Actually believing any number that comes out of china

File: 20915336_797375287108637_8570610482806774189_n.jpg (74KB, 960x480px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x480px

CIWS hardly works underway as it is, but when it does, oh boy. It's much better suited and functional in Sandland. Plus going back to the whole last ditch weapon thing, it is what it is. The PLAN hardly tests weapon systems before fielding them resulting in general sub-par performance navy wide. The end result is that oversized gatlings will most likely be useless during the highly near-future US-China War.

Is the goalkeeper any good?

>>35035229
Okay, I understand what you're trying to say, but allow me to let you in on a little hint about the laws of physics: heat generation, absorption, and dissipation are not linear functions.

>>35035229
>7 barrel slags at 4k rpm (AFTER ONE MINUTE OF SUSTAINED FIRE)
>11 barrel is just fine at over twice the RPM (SINCE IT CAN KEEP FIRING FOR A MAXIMUM OF 17 SECONDS BEFORE IT RUNS OUT OF AMMO)

Fixed your post, no need to thank me

>>35034585
But, muh 10,000 rpm!!! (In Chingrish)
Even during the pissing match that was the Cold War, the Soviets even eventually learned that the highest possible rate of fire is not always the best.

This isn't a very good thread, guys

File: WNNeth_30mm_Goalkeeper_side_pic[1].jpg (33KB, 762x429px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 762x429px

>>35038161
No clue, but I like the name a lot

File: 161.jpg (315KB, 846x1024px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 846x1024px

>>35035170
>you

>>35034688
I... in the ammo housing for the gun?

File: 1492400603995.jpg (86KB, 411x292px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 411x292px

>>35036044
The sheer irony and lack of self awareness seen in this post is astounding