Posted on 03/09/2017 7:58:59 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
During IDEX-NAVDEX, held from 19th to 23rd February in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, Chinese company CSSC (China Shipbuilding Trading Co. Ltd.) unveiled the Type 730C dual gun and missile close in weapon system (CIWS). It combines the existing Type 730 seven-barrelled 30 mm Gatling gun system (Chinese Navy designation: H/PJ12) with 6x FL-3000N (Flying Leopard 3000 Naval missile, Chinese Navy designation: AJK-10 or HQ-10).
Type 730C dual gun and missile CIWS
According to a CSSC video, one set of fire control system uniformly manages missiles and ship borne guns to alternately hit incoming targets. SAM can work in conjunction with the guns to cope with two batches of incoming targets in order to enhance the capability of resisting saturation attacks.
Each 730C system comes with LR66 tracking radar and OC8 electro-optical tracker which can track and calculate two separate targets (fire on one, keep track of the other) at the same time. Contrary to exhisiting Type 730, these two sensors are not fitted on the CIWS on the new Type 730C variant (probably due to weight and EM interferences issues with the missiles). The whole system also comes with the SR64A search radar.
A single WCC-03 fire control console located in the ship CIC is used to control the Type 730C. There are also two associated cabinets: One for testing and training, the other being a "multifunctional exchange equipment".
Type 730C Dual Gun and Missile CIWS 3Type 730C dual gun and missile CIWS
Type 730C performance:
As provided by CSSC:
Gun ammunition capacity: 2x drums of 500 rounds each.
Three modes of gun firing rate: 4000 rd/min - 2000 rd/min and 1000 rd/min
Gun effective range: 2500 meters against missile (using APDS), 3500 meters against aircraft (using HE) and 5000 meters against surface targets (using HE).
Interception range: 1400 to 150 meters against missiles; 3500 to 150 meters against aircraft.
The system reaction time between receiving whole ship target designation data and the gun pointing to the target ballistic point is less than 6 second for the LR66 tracking radar channel and less than 6.5 seconds for the OC8 electro-optical channel.
Target processing capability: about 32 targets.
Threat displaying capability: about 8 targets
Interception envelope of guns: 150 meters to 2500 meters
Interception envelope of missiles: 2000 meters to 8000 meters
LR66 Radar detecting range:
Against air target of 2m² RCS: about 16 Km
Against surface target: Visual Range
Against sea skimming target 0.1m² RCS: about 6 Km
OC8 Operational range:
Under the conditions of visibillity not less than 23.5 Km, environmental temperature not more than 25°c, relative humidity not more than 80%:
The operational range against 2m² RCS target is not less than 14Km and not less than 7Km against 0.1m² RCS target.
Type 730C Dual Gun and Missile CIWS 4A destroyer fitted with 2x Type 730C dual gun and missile CIWS
It is curved - at the front end of the launch section. You can see the curved ‘ski-jump’ at 1:43 in the video. Liaoning has the same angled rear deck for landing that all modern carriers have.
dude, you’re posting propaganda video. hate to tell you, but the life expectancy of a Chinese carrier pilot is comparable to jihadist suicide bomber trainee.
I hate it when people destroy an entire thread for iOS Safari users because they mindlessly post massively oversized graphics.
it’s just so easy to resize them. people don’t even try to be good forum citizens.
Oh, ok, only noticed the flat portion. I’ll look at it again.
You do know that many browsers automatically resize graphics so you can’t necessarily tell what size it is, right? If you just cut and paste the URL, you can’t always tell what resolution it really is. And I say that as someone who uses iOS Safari.
Nobody said the airplane or carrier was particularly *good* - but other powers and independent news media have actually seen the thing launching *and* recovering aircraft now. Your earlier assertion that they cannot recover aircraft on the carrier is demonstrably untrue.
if you want to hide behind your propaganda video in order to claim that the Chinese carriers are capable of sustained flight ops, then go with God.
myself, I think you’re grossly overestimating the significance of the two hamsters that actually made it. WHY you’re doing all of that is a bit mysterious.
the original graphics size is easily knowable information. or, simply make it a practice to post through tinypic, which allows you to resize on the fly. easy peasy.
hot linking is pretty perilous for a lot of reasons, beyond just posting criminally large graphics.
Because it is more dangerous to underestimate your enemy than it is to overestimate them.
Also, I like how you’re moving the goalposts here. You initially said they couldn’t recover aircraft. Clearly they are recovering aircraft. Now you’re claiming that you’d said they were capable of sustained flight ops, which was not at all mentioned in the original post.
Mmmmh-hmm. You keep thinking that you can always see the resolution of the picture no matter what prior to posting. Here’s a hint: You can’t. And I’m not going to use TinyPic because of their questionable advertising practices and being a known malware vector. Thanks but no thanks.
they can’t recover aircraft. not in any way that goes beyond the abject meaninglessness of a youtube video — which may be the very height of meaninglessness.
but certainly not in the way that anyone would bother to build aircraft carriers in the first place — which is to perform sustained flight ops, potentially under combat conditions.
you’re just being obstinate at this point. first of all, even if you don’t believe that picture size and dimensions are knowable beforehand (and they are), there is the preview function that FR inteligently (all but) forces you to go through before your final post — so, you had to know that was an irresponsibly huge picture when you posted it; you just didn’t give a damn, and posted it anyway. it just isn’t believable that you didn’t know it was going to obliterate the thread before you did it.
and tiny pic is no more vulnerable to malware injection than wherever you googled that photo from. the entire internet is a pretty tough neighborhood. you get a big raspberry on that one, too.
none of this excuse making rings true in the slightest.
All you have to do is add “width=400” inside your HTML tag and preview. You can then adjust the 400 as necessary but 90% of the time, the width of 400 is just fine.
Google “TinyPic malware” - they have an inordinate amount of malware issues, so much so that they constantly keep getting on and off blacklists.
Last I checked, Wikipedia (where I got the pic from) has never spread malware, which is more than can be said about TinyPic.
And, no, I honestly didn’t know it was the huge resolution pic. But you know what? The more you complain, the more I want to post higher resolution pictures to threads.
I could do that - but I’d have to want to. Normally, I’m quite careful to not do that, as my posting history should show quite handily. I just didn’t notice it this time.
However, the more that other guy complains the more he makes me want to stop being intentionally courteous and start posting the largest possible images.
The Type-730 gun system has been in service for over a decade and the HQ-10 missile has been around for a few years and is being deployed on several Chinese ships.
And the Chinese have operated a similar Russian system called the Kashtan on their Sovremenny class destroyers for a decade now. Plenty of time to steal/copy the technology for an integral CIWS.
Russians have the same thing. Interesting.
Maybe you need to upgrade to a bigger monitor than the 5” display on your Osborne computer.
The Tunguska may had a decent record, but the naval Kashtan system, which uses the same SAM as the former, seems to have been a disappointment. It has a higher minimum engagement zone (around 1.5 km) for antiship missiles and low warhead weight. The Russians have never standardised on it, while India and China have installed it only on a few ships built in Russia.
you totally understand the concept. and you totally read the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.