PLAN close in weapon

Discussion in 'Navy' started by tphuang, Jul 4, 2007.

  1. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    so, I was browsing through Chinese bbs after a long day and found some interesting section comparing the main guns used on PLAN vs ROCN. It was specifically about AK-176M vs Otobreda 76 mm.

    one of the posters who previously made a lot of revelations about Type 730 CIWS also commented on this, I thought it was sort of interesting.

    basically, he said several points,
    1. they originally compared oto 76 with the 100 mm naval gun to see which one was better to import and they picked 100 mm one and AK-176 turned out to have even more advantages.
    2. at that time, OTO-76 did not have the automation level of 100 mm gun. at that time, it was also easier for China to develop guided munitions for 100 mm (I guess because it's bigger?). And after 054's 100 mm was simplified by over 40% in sensors, it's high speed shooting's reliability is not good
    As for purely the accuracy, OTO-76 is better than the other two, but consecutive shot accuracy is garbage. Also, firing speed and initial speed is extremely important for China since it has anti-missile need, that's where AK-176M has serious advantage. After china improved on AK-176M, it is much faster at replacing rounds than OTO-76.
    if there are not enough type of munition, you can develop more. As for accuracy, it can also be improved.

    you can check in 1982, what kind of munition was used on OTO-76 and what it's speed was. As for AD medium diameter main gun, auto reload is important, the improve AK-176 can achieve reload in no time, whereas OTO-76 is behind here. It's not that OTO-76 is bad, but rather it's design doesn't fit PLAN.
    when you compare China's 100 mm with that of France, it's equivalent to going from French's 100 MK1 to MK2. 100 mm's technology can easily be used on 130 mm, and can use this to develop more advanced munition guidance system. China developing 76 was started around 92 to 94, after improving on AK-176, did not bother to look at the super rapid OTO-76. The initial speed of OTO-76 is 920 m/s, whereas AK-176 is 980 m/s, for over 5000 m, the flight time is 2.5 second shorter. Also AK-176 fires off 10 more rounds. This gives AK-176 certain advantages against anti-ship missile, as for new munition, China is developing it's own.
    Also, the figure given for accuracy is only for single round 1000 m. When firing 60 to 90 consecutive shots, there is no difference. Also, AK-176's munition is better than OTO, as it can better defend against multiple targets in high threat environment.
     
  2. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    also found an analysis of China's large diameter naval gun development, although in Chinese, I will try to translate later.
    basically mentions 155 mm and 127/130 mm guns in development.
     
  3. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    let's see if I can translate the above.
    first talks about China's first attempt at a 130 mm naval gun, also known as Type 76, which was certified in 1976, but did not get equipped until 80s on Ludas. So, this would've been advanced for 60s, but unfortunately, it didn't get fielded until 80s. specs are 34 rounds/min, muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, munition weight is 33.4 kg and range is 27.7 (which later became 38 km)
    uses shrapnel and Semi-Armor Piercing-High Penetration round.
    next talks about AK-130 that was imported as part of sov deal. It's performance include 30 to 60 rounds/min, 875 m/s muzzle velocity, 33.4 kg round and range of 29 km.
    next it talks about the new generation of single barrel 130 mm gun being developed, first it compares A-192E with OTO127 and MK45-4 to see how they compare with each other
    from about, it looks like 127/130 mm are all becoming lighter compared to previous 130 mm, looking at 20-30 rounds/min, range of 30 km, the gun weight is less than 30 ton.
    talk about the difficulty in developing a new 130 mm gun since the only type 76 has been developed thus far, China can only use 100 mm naval gun as guidance for the new 130 mm. Since 100 mm can fire at 90 rounds/min, developing something firing at 30 rounds/min is not easy. If using single 100 mm naval gun's technology is not suitable, China would have to use AK-130 technology like A-192E.
    so the new 130 mm gun with probably need to achieve specs of 30 ton in gun weight, 30 rounds/min, range 29 km, exterior looking similar to type 79's gun mount. can choose from different rounds and reload in less than 10 second.
    munition, of course, 130 mm rounds that only have 30 km range vs surface or sea target is not enough. If you want to increase range, you can decrease drag, use rocket, use glide method, secondary caliber. To increase through rocket you can increase size of rocket motor and decrease powder, increase by 28%. it goes through the methods...
    use 105 mm round can increase range to 40 km.
    goes through the different type of rounds that can be developed.
    talks about achieving 900 m/s muzzle speed compared to land based gun of 500 m/s. It talks abot trying to use laser guidance in the 130 mm round. At current time, infrared guidance and TV guidance can be fitted on 155 mm rounds, but putting it in 130 mm requires further development.
    talks about western development of 155 mm naval gun.
    Chinese development could use the 155 mm howitzer's round as the basis.
    further on are ust guesses on possible performance and such.
     
  4. Kongo
    Offline

    Kongo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was just reading your blog entry and I wanted to reply there but I didn't have a gmail account. Your assessment that the Super Rapid is overratede doesn't hold water. I also don't understand how you can draw a conclusion on SR performance when what you are quoting compares the performance of the Compact version. While the claimed ROF of the 76SR is 120 rnds/min, the SR76 achieved 139 rnds/min during trials, which would put the ROF as better, if not the same as the AK-176, which also has a claimed 120 rnds/min ROF. The 76SR also has a higher traverse (60 vs 35 deg/s) and elevation rate (35 vs 30 deg/s) than the AK-176, very important in the AAW role against multiple targets and against tracking maneuvering targets. Acceleration is 72deg/ sec^2 for both elevation and traverse. The SR is also highly accurate with round dispersion rates better than many CIWS systems, with standard deviation figures of less than 0.3 mrad at 1000 m per burst of 10 rounds fired at maximum rate. Muzzle velocity wise, the Ammunition Reduced Time-of-Flight (ART) round already negates the main advantage the AK-176 has, with muzzle velocity of ART series rounds in excess of M3. Most importantly, the 76SR already has the DART guided anti-air munition designed for it under the DAVIDE system, which was designed to satisfy the specifications calling for a minimum keep-out range of 1nm (1.6km) - to prevent any missile debris coming inbound - and a kill probability exceeding 90% against a manoeuvrable, sea-skimming, supersonic anti-ship missile threat. If the AK-176 was a capable CIWS, why is there a need for the Type 730? On the other hand, the 76SR is the designated CIWS for the Italian navy.
     
  5. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    not overrated, but rather AK-176M has numerous advantages.
    for AK-176M, it's actually 131 rnd/min. And SR76 may go 139 in trial, but in practice, it's not going to go that high.
    I don't have figures for AK-176M, can't really comment on that.
    For the original AK-176, it was 0.8 mrad. Although with improved fire control and munition, I'm sure it's comparable to that. Also, the other thing i mentionned is that with single ammo, this makes a difference, but with consecutive firings and dispersions, the difference is not that much.
    so you are going to munitions now, as I said in my blog, guided munitions can be developed. You don't know what kind of munitions China use on its AK-176M, it's not the same as the Russian ones. Make no mistake, if China chose oto melara over 100 mm gun back in the days, it would be using its own projectiles right now, not Italian ones.
    And the other factor that I forgot to mention is that AK-176 allows the storage of double the amount of ammo compared to oto melara.
    That should show you how much higher PLAN's requirements are. Let's put it this way, Kashtan claims 96% accuracy against the target you mentionned, but PLAN considers it a piece of junk. Can AK-176 possibly handle 10 simultaneous supersonic targets?
     
  6. Kongo
    Offline

    Kongo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not according to here.
    http://warfare.ru/?catid=311&linkid=2337

    Has there been any upgrades to the traversing system?

    How can you be 'sure' when you have no info?

    That is the claim made by somebody. Besides, the figure i gave is for a burst of 10 rounds. And the accuracy figures do not degrade just over a few firings. With water cooling, it is likely that the 76SR can maintain its accuracy for much longer.

    And guns can be further upgraded. Should we take some non-existent future upgrade of the 76SR and use it to compare with the AK-176M, and hence conclude that it is more effective?

    Yes, the PLAN may have some mystical shashoujiang round that nobody knows about. Maybe not even they themselves know about it. This is lame, everytime the PLAN comes up short in some area, the refrain becomes 'you don't know what the PLAN has'.

    Nice, but with a dispersion of 0.8, (or even with some incremental improvements) that ammo capacity's likely to be needed.

    That logic only works if one has already arrived at the assumption that the AK-176 is as capable as the 76SR. Which is totally silly when what we are trying to do is determine whether the AK-176 is better than the 76SR.
     
    #6 Kongo, Nov 14, 2007
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2007
  7. Kongo
    Offline

    Kongo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just shows that Russia tends to exaggerate its claims. Or not provide the conditions under which those results are achievable. I can achieve 100% accuracy for any gun. Put the target in front of the barrel. Just shows how much one can trust figures for the AK-176.
     
  8. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    latest data is 120-131 for the fast mode
    not sure, but for the sake of argument, we can give the traversing system advantage to oto melara
    Not saying that the 10th round is not accurate, but rather with x number of rounds against y number of targets(the figure I think PLAN tested was far greater than 10), it was found that the performances were comparable.
    76 mm munitions can be fit into other 76 mm guns. We are comparing guns themselves, not the projectiles. Stuff like firing rate, muzzle velocity and as you brought up traversal figures cannot be upgraded as rapidly as putting in a new projectile. It's a projectile after all, you really think China can't develop a guided projectile to fit in later if it really wanted to?
    again, 0.8 was in the 80s with the original AK-176. These things improve over 20 years. But yeah, one way to counter less accuracy is definitely shooting more. After 10 ammos, oto melera might have a higher chance of bringing down two incoming missiles from the same direction. But after 50 ammos, is there still an advantage?
    do you think USN would use a oto 76 for its close in defense? Why would PLAN choose any other standards? A main naval gun can't match the AD capabilities of a modern multi-barrel CIWS. And of course, even advanced CIWS like Goalkeeper can't match RAM.
    Actually, the Russian figures were slightly bloated, but still reasonably close to that, although it's not as good as goalkeeper, that's for sure.
    I actually meant oto melera handling 10 concurrent missiles there. That's basically what 2 Type 730 are expected to do.
     
  9. Kongo
    Offline

    Kongo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been trying to find such data without success.

    This claim is against the Compact. Has the PLAN tested the Super Rapid? And finally, this is still a claim made by an anonymous individual.

    And yet the capability of a gun comes from its ammunition.

    The 127mm/62 Mk54 mod 4 and the ERGM? Which entered service first?

    Has China developed a DART equivalent? Developing a guided round capable of sustaining the shock of 30,000Gs isn't trivial.

    By how much? Somehow you are sure that it has improved to the same level as the 76SR.

    How do you know the accuracy is degraded that badly after just 50 rounds? What you are going on is totally based on the words of that unknown individual. There has been no other claim of such anywhere. Anyway, this point is made irrelevant with the DART.

    The 76mm and the 57mm was evaluated for as the next gen gun-based CIWS solution by the USN. The 57mm won out. That doesn't necessarily mean the 57mm performed better. Other factors like cost, ship impact may have played a factor. Compared to the 76SR, the 57mm has twice the ROF but half the explosive power per round, and also has lesser range.

    Your assumption is a fallacy. The 57mm is the gun based CIWS on the DDG-1000 and the LCS. Larger calibres are gaining favour jsut as China adopted the Type 730. The Phalanx and the Goalkeeper are still used because they are already bought, and in the case of the Phalanx, it is simply bolt-on and thus easily installed.

    The 76SR was designed specifically as a CIWS for the ASMD role. That is its primary role, with anti-surface roles being a secondary role. Smaller calibre gives greater ROF, but larger calibre can utilise ABM, have longer ranges and use guided munitions.

    10? And which poster posted that requirement? What kind of targets? What's the separation between the targets? I have no idea how many targets the DAVIDE is expected to handle, but without the details, a simple number even if provided, is not very meaningful. What I can find is that each engagement with a DAVIDE equipped 76SR is not to take more than 5 rounds, and the keep out range is 2km. Try that with the Goalkeeper, AK-176M or Type 730. But I can find some info for the 76SR without the use of the DAVIDE and DART, utilising just the Dardo FCS and normal ammunition.

    "OTO-Melara estimates that, combined with the Dardo FCS, the SR can begin engaging attacking missiles at about 6,600 yards (6,000 m), with the first rounds arriving on target at 6,000 yards (5,500 m). With these ranges, a single gun can deal with up to four subsonic sea-skimmer missiles, arriving simultaneously on courses 90 degrees apart, before any reaches 1,100 yards (1,000 m). "

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75.htm
     
  10. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,693
    February Issue of Kanwa. And also I think April Issue of Kanwa, with commentary from PN as part of accepting AK-176M with F-22P.
    + Richard Fisher's article
    http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.152/pub_detail.asp
    don't think so, but they tested it at the same time with 100 mm. Both sides are upgraded since. At that time, 76 mm had numerous advantages, but 100 mm fit PLAN requirements better. You can believe this person or not, this person works for 707 institute. And if you don't, that's fine. I'm presenting what I believe PLAN came up with their conclusions.
    Neither F-15 no F-22 can't shoot down an opposing plane either without missiles/gun, does that mean we can't compare F-22 and F-15 independent of missiles? Point is, you can put PL-2 on F-22 and AMRAAM on F-15, F-22 will probably loose, but it's still superior to F-15.
    actually, we don't get much of anything regarding projectiles. I mean, you can see what they are giving out to export market, but that's it. Actually, I'm doing a research right now on their development of a Chinese AGS. It's said to be able to hit ships 300 km away. If that gets unveiled anytime soon, I think you would know the implications.
    if they can get Type 730 CIWS to achieve the accuracy of Goalkeeper. I think that having the belief they can improve AK-176 to a comparable level to Oto 76 mm is not that crazy.
    not that it degrade, but after 50 rounds, both side are going to shoot down the incoming missiles. Oto 76 might do it quicker, but that's where the additional storage + firing rate help.
    Right, that's exactly why most of the navies still use goalkeeper, phalanx and RAM, right? I'm sure the Koreans didn't know what they were doing on KDX-3. Or the Japanese with Atago class. And I'm sure the Brits didn't know what they were doing when they made provision for Phalanx on Type 45.
    I agree with that.
    well, take a look at Goalkeeper's test results, Type 730 CIWS is suppose to exceed that in performance. I believe I mentionned they were supersonic sea-skimmers coming in pairs that are 90 degrees apart. Look, this is going nowhere. If you wish to end this, I will give you the last word. But if you want to continue, I will continue.

    Basically, the advantages I stated for AK-176M was clear:
    faster rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, double ammo storage.
    Your stated advantages were,
    faster traversal speed, more accuracy + better rounds.

    by continuing, it will simply be more of emphasizing one's advantages and downplay the disadvantages.
     
    bruceb1959 likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page