Good to see that you start preciate the value of source critisism and separe facts from rumours. My work haven't gone wasted....I feel so proud
PLAN close in weapon
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I really didn't mean that. The whole point of me questioning Tphuang's judgement on the systems was based on this; if you don't know the system characteristics of A, then how do you compare it to B, even if you know the characteristics of B? It may be better than B, it may be worse than B, but the point is, you cannot make any judgement on A relative to B.
If this debate has shown anything, it is how little Tphuang, or anybody else in the public for that matter, knows about the Chinese version AK-176M. Which is why I always refer back to the statistics of the Russian AK-176M, then add whatever improvements we know has been done to the original AK-176M. My main issue is this. You don't start from a conclusion then build a case around it. You get the facts available then you find a conclusion. For example, you notice I have asked a number of times whether any accuracy improvements have been made on the Chinese AK-176M. From Tphuang's lack of reply, it seems that no such upgrades have been made. Maybe it hasn't been declared, but in light of the declarations of other upgrades done on the AK-176M, why is there not even a hint of an accuracy upgrade? Not even a mention of an accuracy upgrade when other upgrades were announced? Tphuang however, started from the conclusion that there was an accuracy upgrade and tried to build a case to support his belief. To this, Tphuang can only give the weak argument that since China is researching an AGS, the accuracy on the AK-176M must be improved. I have already shown how this is a logical fallacy by providing a counter example. What Tphuang says may be true, but don't you think the most likely answer is that there simply was no upgrade done to the AK-176M's accuracy?
Your point is of course true, but then how do we discuss anything if we are to assume everything is false? Or are we going to believe what we want to suit our inclinations? Should we assume China is underdeclaring its weapons characteristics and others are over-declaring them in order to sooth the shortcomings in some characteristics?
Well, some upgrades are obvious from pictures, some are not.
My conclusions come from a knowledge of other PLA systems that are "copied" off other platforms. A good example would be like J-11B. This was licensed to china. They made upgrades like weight reduction, lower RCS, more powerful engines, better avionics and better weapons. How do we know they have better weapons? Well, one explanation is that we know some of the figures surrounding the export SD-10 vs R-77. But the other is the logic that why would they not use R-77 if it is better and they already purchased that in huge quantities (like > 1000)? Rounds are something that are improved for better guidance and killing power. And they are doing upgrades. For example, I read Type 730 is already on its second generation of ammos.
Roger604
Senior Member
Er... no. Your assumption that "no information = nothing there" is not justified because lack of upgrade is inconsistent with the PLA's demonstrated technological advancements across the spectrum.
You are selectively ignoring relevant information that doesn't support the conclusion you'd like to see. Then once you filter out information you don't like, you conclude that there must be nothing there.
It's clear to everyone that it is you who has a case of making non sequitur arguments. "Not knowing for certain whether X is true" is not the same as "X is not true"!
Didn't I just explain my point succintly? "if you don't know the system characteristics of A, then how do you compare it to B, even if you know the characteristics of B? It may be better than B, it may be worse than B, but the point is, you cannot make any judgement on A relative to B." The point is, we don't know enough to say it is better or worse.
Ok, if the 'logic' that they have demonstrated something of higher technical sophistication means that something considered technically simpler must have been implemented, can you explain why the Mk 54 mod 4 5 inch gun is behind in a number of characteristics to its Oto Breda 127mm counterpart? The US has demonstrated great technological capability trough its AGS program, and going by Tphuang's and your logic, the Mk 54 should be a better platform in every way , but it isn't. How do you account for that?
The point is, upgrades done doesn't mean upgrades in all characteristics were carried out. That's the assumption you all are making. For example, the 76SR gained some weight as a result of the upgrades done. Somehow you all believe that just because the Chinese did some upgrades, every aspect of it was upgraded, despite there being no mention so. There is also the problem of cost and time. Sure China may have the capability to do something, but does that mean that it is implementable at a cost they are willing to foot? Many programs in the US were cancelled not because it was undoable, but because they were not doable cost-effectively. Saying China can do something and so it must have been operationalised is yet another logical fallacy. A third point is time. Sure it may be doable, does that mean that it is doable now and has already been implemented?
Lastly, why is it that there has been no mention of any accuracy upgrade, despite the release of other details of other upgrades to the AK-176M? Even if the upgraded accuracy figure is considered sensitive, even a mere mention shouldn't that sensitive, especially when other details like upgrade in ammo capacity were already provided.
So when you compile all the assumptions and the logical fallacies inherent in your conclusion, it is quite clear which side is letting his tendencies clout his judgement. In my view, at the end, after weighing all the facts we have available, the conclusion we should make with the facts at hand is that the AK-176M is less capable. Of course, this conclusion is subject to revision should more information present itself, but until then, that should be the correct conclusion. Or one can choose to believe that China can send its astronauts to the moon and Italy cannot, so there is nothing Italy can do that China can't. Very convenient 'logic' that's not too far a spin-off of the logic displayed by tphuang.
don't get me wrong, you make some good arguments and I've never said the Chinese 76 mm is better than oto 76 mm, but rather that it had certain advantages that PLAN liked and thought would fit well in their system. And then by the virtual of the fact that PLAN likes to modify a chosen platform with its own hull, its own FCR and ammos, you can see why it chose AK-176 as its 76 mm platform. Even if got oto 76 back in the days, it would still be using its own ammos.
Quickie
Colonel
My opinion is that the relative importance of a gun's ROF and accuracy is dependent on the target's range. Higher accuracy contributes very much to its effectiveness when your target is out in a farther distance . This works well albeit at the expense of smaller ROF assuming that accuracy will necessary impede on a gun's ROF due to design consideration. At such farther distance, there is no point of having a less accurate gun with a higher ROF since one can't be sure of hitting anything.
The relative advantage shift towards a gun with a higher ROF as the targets come closer. At a certain closer distance,there will come a point where the hits rates are entirely dependent on the ROF of the gun and not the accuracy. Which brings us to the question. How would one balance the relative importance of these 2 aspects to maximise the effectiveness of a ship (or other) defense system?
The relative advantage shift towards a gun with a higher ROF as the targets come closer. At a certain closer distance,there will come a point where the hits rates are entirely dependent on the ROF of the gun and not the accuracy. Which brings us to the question. How would one balance the relative importance of these 2 aspects to maximise the effectiveness of a ship (or other) defense system?
The first generation AShM's probably had limited number of flight profiles, as they approached final/terminal decent to target. So you could design the CIWS gun to saturate those vectors with hot metal. The same strategy might not work today vs. newest missiles, so they're trying to improve chances with those sub-projectile rounds.
Besides Oto 76 DART, we also see it on Rhinmetall's 35mm gun's ahead ammo, with 152 sub-projectiles each. This is probably a trend that everyone else will follow over the next decade.
The Oto 76mm has many users around the world, so there's good economic incentive to produce upgrades. For the PLAN, unless if they were importing or investing in joint R&D with Russians, would have to fund the project themselves. Fortunately, naval gun systems is one of the cheapest weapon systems on the ship.
Besides Oto 76 DART, we also see it on Rhinmetall's 35mm gun's ahead ammo, with 152 sub-projectiles each. This is probably a trend that everyone else will follow over the next decade.
The Oto 76mm has many users around the world, so there's good economic incentive to produce upgrades. For the PLAN, unless if they were importing or investing in joint R&D with Russians, would have to fund the project themselves. Fortunately, naval gun systems is one of the cheapest weapon systems on the ship.
Last edited:
官泻单130
军报报道，某军代高工周炳武攻克世界性难题，解决了单130外形差异很大的不同弹种同通道输弹和分装式制导炮弹自动装填的难题。使之成为多功能发射平台，能够全自动、全方位精确打击中远距离目标。。
单130于05年初立项研制。。
Some news regarding the Single barrel 130 mm naval gun. Apparently, they solved the problem of being able to process vastly different sized munitions using one common rail. And also solved the problem of automated storage of differently guided munitions. This allows the 130 mm to fire different types of munitions, a multi-purpose platform, is fully automated and can accurately strike medium and long range targets.
apparently, the development for this started out in early 2005.
军报报道，某军代高工周炳武攻克世界性难题，解决了单130外形差异很大的不同弹种同通道输弹和分装式制导炮弹自动装填的难题。使之成为多功能发射平台，能够全自动、全方位精确打击中远距离目标。。
单130于05年初立项研制。。
Some news regarding the Single barrel 130 mm naval gun. Apparently, they solved the problem of being able to process vastly different sized munitions using one common rail. And also solved the problem of automated storage of differently guided munitions. This allows the 130 mm to fire different types of munitions, a multi-purpose platform, is fully automated and can accurately strike medium and long range targets.
apparently, the development for this started out in early 2005.