PLAN close in weapon

Kongo · Nov 16, 2007

tphuang said:
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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your source is the beloved Pinkov that every chinese enthusiast loves for his accuracy? And Fisher that likes to quote Kanwa? Maybe the information is true, but I find the lack of other sources disturbing.

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.

The 76SR is a significantly different gun from the Compact.

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.

If, for the sake of argument, the F-22 will lose to the F-15 because it can only carry the PL-2, then the F-22 is an inferior platform. What is the purpose of comparing them? Do we compare their stats just for the sake of comparison or do we compare them so as to better ascertain their capability in performing a role? What we are trying to do is find out how capable the AK-176 is versus the 76SR in ASMD. Or have I been mirror imaging all along, and all you were doing was trying to find some statistics for the AK-176 that beats the 76SR?

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.

The 'China can do X, so if Y<X in terms of difficulty, Y must be within its capability, and thus Y is a reality' argument. The US has an AGS program underway - are its in-service guns leaders in all the statistics? Try comparing the Mk 45 with the Oto Bereda 127mm. Your logic just fails.

Just answer these questions. Do you have any figure on the accuracy of the AK-176M? If the upgrades were announced for the AK-176M over the AK-176, why was accuracy not among the improvements listed?

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.

Yet another variation of the flawed logic pointed out above.

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.

I find this claim of 'rapid degradation of accuracy' suspect. If this claim were true, then all given figures of accuracy for guns are pointless without any figure on the rate of degradation of accuracy. It seems more to me as a way to cover for the most serious flaw in the AK-176's ability to perform in the ASMD role.

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.

That's the problem with you. You think that just because some navy has not adopted something, that something it must be inferior. Ever crossed your mind that choices are determined by far more than performance? Cost, impact on ship design are all factors? The KDX-3 and the Atago already have robust layered air defenses which lessens the requirement for CIWS performance. The Phalanx's advantage over the Goalkeeper is its bolt-on feature. The compatibility of the Phalanx with the Type 45 is less a case of space reserved for it than the flexibility of installation for the Phalanx. All one needs is a clear deck with a good arc of fire and provision for power for installation of the Phalanx.

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.

This is going somewhere. You just don't like where it is going. :coffee:

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.

There are many advantages to the 76SR. The number of advantages depends on whether we take into account the DART munition or not. But the most important thing is not the advantages or the number of them, but what these advantages bring.

Without DART:

1. Higher rate of traverse and elevation. Can therefore better track targets and switch between targets faster. Therefore more time for engaging each target, and more time per target means more time to put more rounds on each target.

2. Higher muzzle velocity. The DART munition travels at a velocity of 1200m/s, and the unguided version of the DART, the ART, shares the same body. Means more accuracy beyond the already low 0.3 mrad figure given.

3. Far lower weight. The 76SR mount weighs 7.5 tons, the AK-176M mount weighs 11.2 tons. Total system weight for the AK-176M is 16.8 tons, while the 76 Compact weighs 8.5 tons. I cannot find the figure for the 76SR, but the 76SR should not vary from that figure by far. This shows just how much the advantage lies in favor of the 76SR. In terms of weight impact, 2 76SRs can be fitted in place of 1 AK-176M.

4. Higher accuracy. Which determines how much ammo is expended per target and how much time is expended to engage each target.

With DART there are more advantages:

1. Any disadvantage (if it even exists) for the 76SR (despite achieving 139 rnds/min in tests) in terms of ROF is gone. There is no need for so many rounds per engagement with the DAVIDE system. And the AK-176 could only sustain its maximum ROF for 75 rounds before having to cool off for 25 to 30 minutes. Which means that in the time limit spent to fire 75 rounds, the AK-176 can fire off just 6 rounds more than the 76SR.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2. Engagements can be carried out further from the ship. The probability of kill at max range for unguided rounds is low. Especially with the 0.8 mrad accuracy of the AK-176. But one is of course one is free to believe that the accuracy of the AK-176M has been improved, irrespective of the lack of evidence.

3. More targets can be engaged because of the accuracy at long range. Means less time spent per target. Also means that debris from destroyed targets don't get to the ship, unlike the Type 730/Goalkeeper/Phalanx type CIWS.

tphuang · Nov 16, 2007

since you enjoy replying, I will just see how much I can get to before I leave for work

Kongo said:
Your source is the beloved Pinkov that every chinese enthusiast loves for his accuracy? And Fisher that likes to quote Kanwa? Maybe the information is true, but I find the lack of other sources disturbing.

I actually don't like both, but in this case, they clearly got it from the military exhibition, where they were advertising the products

The 76SR is a significantly different gun from the Compact.

sure, and so is Chinese AK-176M from the original AK-176. The entire hull got changed

If, for the sake of argument, the F-22 will lose to the F-15 because it can only carry the PL-2, then the F-22 is an inferior platform. What is the purpose of comparing them? Do we compare their stats just for the sake of comparison or do we compare them so as to better ascertain their capability in performing a role? What we are trying to do is find out how capable the AK-176 is versus the 76SR in ASMD. Or have I been mirror imaging all along, and all you were doing was trying to find some statistics for the AK-176 that beats the 76SR?

I was explaining in my blog why PLAN made its choices.

The 'China can do X, so if Y<X in terms of difficulty, Y must be within its capability, and thus Y is a reality' argument. The US has an AGS program underway - are its in-service guns leaders in all the statistics? Try comparing the Mk 45 with the Oto Bereda 127mm. Your logic just fails.

if you can achieve a 50 m accuracy on a 300 km shot and even more accurate with a seeker, then doing it with a 76 mm isn't so hard.

Just answer these questions. Do you have any figure on the accuracy of the AK-176M? If the upgrades were announced for the AK-176M over the AK-176, why was accuracy not among the improvements listed?

Do you see the actual accuracy is the normal websites for Oto 76 mm? It's clearly not a commonly stated stats. Whereas traversal, rof, engagement area and range are.
besides, that was the Russian one, the Chinese one is a further upgrade.

Yet another variation of the flawed logic pointed out above.

how about this, check the accuracy on goalkeeper test results, if they can improve the 30 mm rounds to that accuracy. Then, what about 62 mm rounds?

I find this claim of 'rapid degradation of accuracy' suspect. If this claim were true, then all given figures of accuracy for guns are pointless without any figure on the rate of degradation of accuracy. It seems more to me as a way to cover for the most serious flaw in the AK-176's ability to perform in the ASMD role.

not necessarily degrade. but that given a greater number of ammos, AK-176 can accomplish the same task.

That's the problem with you. You think that just because some navy has not adopted something, that something it must be inferior. Ever crossed your mind that choices are determined by far more than performance? Cost, impact on ship design are all factors? The KDX-3 and the Atago already have robust layered air defenses which lessens the requirement for CIWS performance. The Phalanx's advantage over the Goalkeeper is its bolt-on feature. The compatibility of the Phalanx with the Type 45 is less a case of space reserved for it than the flexibility of installation for the Phalanx. All one needs is a clear deck with a good arc of fire and provision for power for installation of the Phalanx.

right, sam argument can be made against ship with only 76 mm.
huh? If anything, KDX-3 and Atago have higher requirements because they have a better chance of facing multiple supersonic missiles from PLAN. And they have no more layer than horizon which has Aster 15 and 30. ESSM/SM2. final layer ram/phalanx/goalkeeper vs 76 mm
alright, really have to go now.

Kongo · Nov 16, 2007

I actually don't like both, but in this case, they clearly got it from the military exhibition, where they were advertising the products

Strangely, nowhere else uses the 130 rnds/min figure. Not Jane's, not even Russian websites.

sure, and so is Chinese AK-176M from the original AK-176. The entire hull got changed

But I can provide actual figures to back myself up. All you can do is provide seriously flawed "logic".

if you can achieve a 50 m accuracy on a 300 km shot and even more accurate with a seeker, then doing it with a 76 mm isn't so hard.

How many "50 m accuracy on a 300 km shots" has China conducted? Or are you bringing out the timeless 'you don't know what China has/is doing' argument again? :roll:

Do you see the actual accuracy is the normal websites for Oto 76 mm? It's clearly not a commonly stated stats. Whereas traversal, rof, engagement area and range are.

Actually, I do. You don't?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

besides, that was the Russian one, the Chinese one is a further upgrade.

Yes, and so accuracy must be improved, since the Chinese upgraded it. Was there even a hint that accuracy was increased?

how about this, check the accuracy on goalkeeper test results, if they can improve the 30 mm rounds to that accuracy. Then, what about 62 mm rounds?

What kind of logic is this? More of the same. And where is it shown that the Type 730 has achieved the same accuracy as the Goalkeeper? What is the accuracy of the Type 730?

not necessarily degrade. but that given a greater number of ammos, AK-176 can accomplish the same task.

It seems you have not read the last part of my post.

right, sam argument can be made against ship with only 76 mm.
huh? If anything, KDX-3 and Atago have higher requirements because they have a better chance of facing multiple supersonic missiles from PLAN. And they have no more layer than horizon which has Aster 15 and 30. ESSM/SM2. final layer ram/phalanx/goalkeeper vs 76 mm
alright, really have to go now.

But that doesn't explain why the 76SR is designated the sole CIWS platform, while if the AK-176 was as capable as the 76SR, the Type 730 still had to be installed. You tried to explain it by saying the PLAN had high requirements. Another conclusion could also be drawn, that the AK-176's performance simply wasn't enough as a CIWS. Do you acknowledge the possibilities of both these conclusions?

adeptitus · Nov 16, 2007

I think the AK-176M gun has 3 automatic firing rates, 30/min, 60/min, and 120-130/min. For example:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

But I think we can all agree that it cannot sustain max firing rate for long, nor would it be used in such way. Common sense say the gun would be used to fire short bursts and not continuous to achieve max rate & blow the barrel, except maybe in testing.

Information on Russian and Chinese gun R&D is kinda scarce, but we can look at the Italian development/improvement history as an example:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The original AK-176 was designed 40 years ago, it's not unreasonable to assume improvements have been made since, just as improvements have been made to the Oto 76. Also, if we look at Chinese naval artillery, there's a history or trend of improved variants.

The Oto 76 is a great gun for space/weight savings, and allow smaller warships to have more weight allocation for missiles. The large numbers of <500 ton Corvettes & FAC's equipped with this gun is a testament to its success.

Kongo · Nov 16, 2007

The Oto 76 is a great gun for space/weight savings, and allow smaller warships to have more weight allocation for missiles. The large numbers of <500 ton Corvettes & FAC's equipped with this gun is a testament to its success.

In an attack similar to the 76SR shown above, the 120 rnd/min mode of fire will be required, and firing will be virtually continuous, except during the time taken to switch between targets. Except with a 75 round limit and an average of 25 rounds taken to engage each target, the maximum targets that can be handled is 3. After which one has to pray there are no ASM leakers through the outer layer defense system for the next half hour.

tphuang · Nov 17, 2007

Kongo said:
Strangely, nowhere else uses the 130 rnds/min figure. Not Jane's, not even Russian websites.

That's because they weren't taken from the latest military exhibition. These systems do improve, you know. Add that as one more property they improved with AK-176M.

But I can provide actual figures to back myself up. All you can do is provide seriously flawed "logic".

hmm, we know a different hull is used, the fire control radar is different (one we haven't seen on PLAN ships before) + other Chinese copied main naval gun (100 mm) does not use the ammo of the original French one, so how is that a flawed logic. Be a longtime China follower, you will see that logical deduction + pictures + posts of the "insiders" on Chinese bbs are the best sources available, better than JDW or kanwa or any other garbage website.

How many "50 m accuracy on a 300 km shots" has China conducted? Or are you bringing out the timeless 'you don't know what China has/is doing' argument again? :roll:

We are still waiting for it to be put on a ship, one of the top 3 to 5 development that I'm following closely

Actually, I do. You don't?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Good to know they show it then, the sites i visited did not.

Yes, and so accuracy must be improved, since the Chinese upgraded it. Was there even a hint that accuracy was increased?

hmm, they improved other parts of the gun, like a stealthier hull + upgraded FCR. PLAN uses its own ammos -> different results from the Russian ammos.

What kind of logic is this? More of the same. And where is it shown that the Type 730 has achieved the same accuracy as the Goalkeeper? What is the accuracy of the Type 730?

Type 730 is suppose to equal or exceed the performance of goalkeeper. That's the requirement. Type 730 hasn't been offered for export anywhere, so most of the critical stats are not unveiled.

It seems you have not read the last part of my post.

that's what happens when you have to go to work

But that doesn't explain why the 76SR is designated the sole CIWS platform, while if the AK-176 was as capable as the 76SR, the Type 730 still had to be installed. You tried to explain it by saying the PLAN had high requirements. Another conclusion could also be drawn, that the AK-176's performance simply wasn't enough as a CIWS. Do you acknowledge the possibilities of both these conclusions?

sure. Of course now, what seems to be going on from the Abu Dhabi exhibition that showcased both AK-176M and AK-630M is that they are treating these two as two layers of defense. One to handle I guess 1.5 km to 10 km and the other is for within 1.5 km. After all, they do share the same network.
Different naval philosophies at work.

Higher muzzle velocity. The DART munition travels at a velocity of 1200m/s, and the unguided version of the DART, the ART, shares the same body. Means more accuracy beyond the already low 0.3 mrad figure given.

where did you get this 1200 m/s from? I've been seeing around 920 m/s everywhere.

Far lower weight. The 76SR mount weighs 7.5 tons, the AK-176M mount weighs 11.2 tons. Total system weight for the AK-176M is 16.8 tons, while the 76 Compact weighs 8.5 tons. I cannot find the figure for the 76SR, but the 76SR should not vary from that figure by far. This shows just how much the advantage lies in favor of the 76SR. In terms of weight impact, 2 76SRs can be fitted in place of 1 AK-176M.

huh? The advertised weight of latest Russian export AK-176M is 10 tonne according to what Kanwa found at a 2006 arms exhibition + China is using a different hull than the Russian one (so you get a different weight for that). If you are going to hold double the amount of ammos, it's obviously going to weigh more. As for in terms of weight impact, 2 76 SR in place of 1 AK-176, that's totally ridiculous. far more important factors are deck penetration + power requirements + dimension of the system.

There is no need for so many rounds per engagement with the DAVIDE system. And the AK-176 could only sustain its maximum ROF for 75 rounds before having to cool off for 25 to 30 minutes. Which means that in the time limit spent to fire 75 rounds, the AK-176 can fire off just 6 rounds more than the 76SR.

That's the old AK-176. They clearly made upgrades as shown.

Engagements can be carried out further from the ship. The probability of kill at max range for unguided rounds is low. Especially with the 0.8 mrad accuracy of the AK-176. But one is of course one is free to believe that the accuracy of the AK-176M has been improved, irrespective of the lack of evidence.

So, I guess china has been sitting on its butt the entire time while oto is doing all the good work. Sometimes, PLA watching might help. + there is also the added factor of FCR accuracy.

Now, if the FCR accuracy is 1 mrad and comparable between two systems. Then, even 2 fold advantage in just the gun accuracy will result in a much smaller overall accuracy.

Kongo · Nov 17, 2007

That's because they weren't taken from the latest military exhibition. These systems do improve, you know. Add that as one more property they improved with AK-176M.

I wonder if it is the Russians advertising the higher end of the figures. I have come across some sites showing a ROF of 120 -130. But most sites show 120.

hmm, we know a different hull is used, the fire control radar is different (one we haven't seen on PLAN ships before) + other Chinese copied main naval gun (100 mm) does not use the ammo of the original French one, so how is that a flawed logic. Be a longtime China follower, you will see that logical deduction + pictures + posts of the "insiders" on Chinese bbs are the best sources available, better than JDW or kanwa or any other garbage website.

Unfortunately, your 'logical' deduction is more a case of choosing the best the best possible outcome from all the possibilities and taking that as fact. I cannot help noticing that you have not answered my questions on whether there has been any info on any improvements made towards accuracy. Despite the total lack of information, somehow you believe the accuracy of the AK-176M must have improved.

We are still waiting for it to be put on a ship, one of the top 3 to 5 development that I'm following closely

Have they even made one yet? I suspect all you've heard is the existence of a research effort to create a Chinese AGS, and somehow that is evidence enough for you that the AK-176M must be as accurate as the 76SR.

Good to know they show it then, the sites i visited did not.

You must have done very little research on the 76SR then.

hmm, they improved other parts of the gun, like a stealthier hull + upgraded FCR. PLAN uses its own ammos -> different results from the Russian ammos.

And somehow that means accuracy must be improved? Chinese munitions means improved accuracy? I'm sorry, I don't take such things as a matter of faith.

Type 730 is suppose to equal or exceed the performance of goalkeeper. That's the requirement. Type 730 hasn't been offered for export anywhere, so most of the critical stats are not unveiled.

And requirements set means requirements achieved? Has the idea that requirements could be lowered in order to get something into service on the count that somethingis better than nothing? Yet another logical fallacy on your part.

I also find this requirement highly suspect. Requirements are not formulated in this manner. Figure requirements are given, not something like 'performance must equal or exceed the goalkeeper''. Sounds very much like a fanboy claim.

sure. Of course now, what seems to be going on from the Abu Dhabi exhibition that showcased both AK-176M and AK-630M is that they are treating these two as two layers of defense. One to handle I guess 1.5 km to 10 km and the other is for within 1.5 km. After all, they do share the same network.
.

10km? If it tries to start engaging at that range, you're going to need a far larger magazine.

Different naval philosophies at work

Which of course gives us 2 possibilities - either the Chinese requirements for defense are higher than the Italian Navy which sees the 76SR as capable enough, or the Chiinese requirements are equal or lower than the Italian Navies but require two layers of AK-176M and Type 730 to achieve their requirements.

where did you get this 1200 m/s from? I've been seeing around 920 m/s everywhere.

Jane's IDR "New ammunition improves gun performance " October 30 2002.

huh? The advertised weight of latest Russian export AK-176M is 10 tonne according to what Kanwa found at a 2006 arms exhibition + China is using a different hull than the Russian one (so you get a different weight for that). If you are going to hold double the amount of ammos, it's obviously going to weigh more. .

Most sources give the figure I've given. So are you saying the Chinese version is lighter or heavier than the figure I gave?

As for in terms of weight impact, 2 76 SR in place of 1 AK-176, that's totally ridiculous. far more important factors are deck penetration + power requirements + dimension of the system

Don't patronise. I did say 'weight impact' wise.

So, I guess china has been sitting on its butt the entire time while oto is doing all the good work.

No one has said that. But what actual changes has resulted from China's efforts is the question. Questions to which you can provide no answer to at all. But somehow China must have improved the AK-176 to the same level as that of the 7SR. Somehow. It must be true because you want it to be so.

there is also the added factor of FCR accuracy.

Now you try to deflate the importance of gun accuracy. Do you have accuracy figures for the new FCR for the AK-176M? I hope you are not going to give the argument that because it is Chinese the new FCR must somehow be more accurate. It is a little hard to do the same for the 76SR because it is tied to so many types of FCR systems. What can be said is that this is actually a moot point. There are many sensor systems that do provide a <0.3 mrad pointing accuracy (the Phalanx imager provides an accuracy of 10 to 50 μrad), so the accuracy of the gun itself is not limited by external factors. In short, the accuracy of the 76SR isn't constrained by sensor limitations.

This discussion has clearly reached its logical conclusion. You are clearly unable to provide figures to back up your strong belief that the AK-176M has reached parity with the 76SR. Any further discussion will just degenerate into the throwing of more logical fallacies and flawed assumptions as 'evidence' that the AK-176M must have reached parity. I sincerely hope not to see the argument 'if China can send astronauts into space, what can it do that Italy can't' appear. So I find it better to let the matter rest, and we will each cling on to our beliefs, however much/little they are supported by facts. You will find yourself free to throw in the last word.

tphuang · Nov 17, 2007

Kongo said:
I wonder if it is the Russians advertising the higher end of the figures. I have come across some sites showing a ROF of 120 -130. But most sites show 120.

Most sites are still quoting the really old version.

Unfortunately, your 'logical' deduction is more a case of choosing the best the best possible outcome from all the possibilities and taking that as fact. I cannot help noticing that you have not answered my questions on whether there has been any info on any improvements made towards accuracy. Despite the total lack of information, somehow you believe the accuracy of the AK-176M must have improved.

that's a natural progression, like they've improved accuracy of other guns, other missiles and such + they've improved other parts of the gun that we can see. So, when we see an area we can't see directly, we use evidences to push out an answer. If you take a look at Chinese military forums, this is a theme for us.

Have they even made one yet? I suspect all you've heard is the existence of a research effort to create a Chinese AGS, and somehow that is evidence enough for you that the AK-176M must be as accurate as the 76SR.

Well, a good source on Chinese bbs mentionned they do have a 155 mm now.

You must have done very little research on the 76SR then.

I've done enough research on remote stuff, like certain discussions outside of this to know about 0.3 mrad beforehand. But it's not a stat that is commonly posted on naval website.

And somehow that means accuracy must be improved? Chinese munitions means improved accuracy? I'm sorry, I don't take such things as a matter of faith.

again, I just don't see what's the point of arguing anymore. I believe that if other parts of gun are improved and ammo is different, then it's improved too. You on the hand, need official figures to proof that. You don't get official figures with any new Chinese system at this point.

And requirements set means requirements achieved? Has the idea that requirements could be lowered in order to get something into service on the count that somethingis better than nothing? Yet another logical fallacy on your part.

no, it would not have joined service other wise. They started developing this in the 80s. It took them a long long time to get it developed. Same with the 76 mm, although they started that at a later time.

I also find this requirement highly suspect. Requirements are not formulated in this manner. Figure requirements are given, not something like 'performance must equal or exceed the goalkeeper''. Sounds very much like a fanboy claim.

That's unfortunately how China does things, they take a look at existing systems, request for technology transfer and their key data. Then, they use that information to try to come up with something better. You can look at a bunch of their new systems, it's like that.

10km? If it tries to start engaging at that range, you're going to need a far larger magazine.

no definite figure, just saying 1.5 km to whatever the max effective range is.

Which of course gives us 2 possibilities - either the Chinese requirements for defense are higher than the Italian Navy which sees the 76SR as capable enough, or the Chiinese requirements are equal or lower than the Italian Navies but require two layers of AK-176M and Type 730 to achieve their requirements.

sure, although even horizon class requires 3 76 SR, so you get equal number of naval guns. I suspect china would use all Type 730 if it's just for AD, but they still need 76 mm for ground attack

Jane's IDR "New ammunition improves gun performance " October 30 2002.

this is actually hard to believe, because the physical property of the gun simply changes to much. Whereas AK-176's improved ROF is les than 10% improvement. Whereas 76 SR started with even less 900 m/s for muzzle velocity.

Most sources give the figure I've given. So are you saying the Chinese version is lighter or heavier than the figure I gave?

unknown.

No one has said that. But what actual changes has resulted from China's efforts is the question. Questions to which you can provide no answer to at all. But somehow China must have improved the AK-176 to the same level as that of the 7SR. Somehow. It must be true because you want it to be so.

I never said AK-176 was superior or equal to 76 SR, but rather that it has its advantages. And it fits Chinese requirements and works in a system.

Now you try to deflate the importance of gun accuracy. Do you have accuracy figures for the new FCR for the AK-176M? I hope you are not going to give the argument that because it is Chinese the new FCR must somehow be more accurate. It is a little hard to do the same for the 76SR because it is tied to so many types of FCR systems. What can be said is that this is actually a moot point. There are many sensor systems that do provide a <0.3 mrad pointing accuracy (the Phalanx imager provides an accuracy of 10 to 50 μrad), so the accuracy of the gun itself is not limited by external factors. In short, the accuracy of the 76SR isn't constrained by sensor limitations.

well, you can check type 344 radar, although that doesn't give sensor accuracy either. And besides, they work jointly in a system. So, you will need the joint accuracy after taking data from SR-64, the new gun FCR, two TR-47Cs and the E/O trackers

This discussion has clearly reached its logical conclusion. You are clearly unable to provide figures to back up your strong belief that the AK-176M has reached parity with the 76SR. Any further discussion will just degenerate into the throwing of more logical fallacies and flawed assumptions as 'evidence' that the AK-176M must have reached parity. I sincerely hope not to see the argument 'if China can send astronauts into space, what can it do that Italy can't' appear. So I find it better to let the matter rest, and we will each cling on to our beliefs, however much/little they are supported by facts. You will find yourself free to throw in the last word.

why do you even bother discussing Chinese related material then? You are never going to get real specifications unless its for an export version.

Roger604 · Nov 18, 2007

Bah... there's no point arguing with these people. If Hu Jintao doesn't hand the official specs to them on a piece of paper, they'll assume the PLA has nothing.

Obviously, they fail to understand that the secrets the PLA keeps to itself are as technologically advanced as the stuff they actually show you. If anything, they hide the good stuff and show the second-rate. This has been proven time and time again.

If these "naysayer" folks want to be embarrassed by every new PLA gear revealed, let them I say!

Infra_Man99 · Nov 18, 2007

Kongo has made some good points and some bad points. He basically says that unless China shows clear evidence of its military capabilities, then outsiders (like most of us), will never surely know China's military capabilities. This much is true.

However, Kongo also basically says because Chinese military capabilities are not fully revealed, the Chinese military is incapable. Then Kongo basically states that any open data on military hardware is real, and should not be questioned. This is poor thinking for obvious reasons.

1. History has shown over and over that nations do NOT fully reveal their military capabilities for strategic reasons. For example, military units rarely reveal where they are going to strike the enemy. They just do it, and let the enemy figure it out on their own.

2. Data on anything is always debatable; that is why mistakes happen. Nothing is 100% certain. More data = more certainty, but never 100% certainty. Also, false data is revealed for strategic purposes.

Kongo also basically says because the information is not clearly open, then there little point in discussing such matters. He can leave, but I won't. I don't like to gossip, but I enjoy surmising and grabbing hold of whatever information I can get as do many people here. I think it is much better than living a dark cave; you make do with a lamp when the sun hasn't risen, yet.

Thanks Kongo and especially Tphuang for all the information you two have been able to obtain and elaborate on.

PLAN close in weapon

Kongo

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Kongo

Junior Member

adeptitus

Captain

Kongo

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Kongo

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

Roger604

Senior Member

Infra_Man99

Banned Idiot