High-resolution images of 901 combat support ship performing replenishment at sea.
There is one thing I don't understand that the inferiority of 901 armament. As a high value asset, it should be at least 1 1130 + 1 HQ10 for CIWS on 901, 4 630s is quite a cheap solution and would really jeopardize its survivability once war happening. From this pov, I don't think PLAN would plan to go to war in the near future.
actually, according toNothing feeble with these guns, they are still among the best CIWS in the world in my opinion, with their 30mm shells.
There is something that people don't see when you have two of these guns vs. one Type 1130. When two of these H/PJ-13 are engaged on a single target, the two streams of shells can converge to form an X or a scissor just in front of the target with a combined 10,000 rounds per minute. With a ship like Type 901 or Type 071, with H/PJ-13 at four corners, you can create an X front, aft, port and starboard.
actually, according to
On a side note, too bad PLAN doesn't have quick mount/dismount CIWS like the Phalanx and SeaRAM that can be quickly installed in case of emergency to bolster the last line of defense. AK-630/ H/PJ-13 was good enough 20 to 30 years ago, but right now it feels like they're getting long in the tooth.
IIRC the reason PLAN developed Type 730 and then Type 1130 is because they deem the dispersion of H/PJ-13 as too much, hence lowering the hit probability. Type 1130 was developed because ~10000 rounds/min was what their research finally determine is needed to have a sufficient chance of shooting down modern AShM. The drum vs deck penetration ammunition supply choice seems to come from PLAN preference to be able to choose where they want to put the CIWS. Having deck penetration means you're limited on where you can put your CIWS, and PLAN seems to prefer not having to deal with that headache.I don't think so. This weapon is a classic. A single AK-630/PJ-13 is the firepower of the tank killing gun on the A-10. Each shell weighs around .39kg vs. .10kg on the Phalanx, with a firing rate of 5000 rounds per minute up vs. 4500 on the Phalanx. That's a throw weight of over 4x.
Another difference is that you reload the gun underneath, rather than externally via drums. You are not limited to the ammo feed of a drum. There is more damage and weather protection there, although at the expense of using space underneath.
View attachment 70830
I like the point of having a separate radar from the gun. This lets you use different radars whether its a MR123 Bass Tilt, a Type 347G or a Type 349 monopulse radars. The radar can be located higher for a higher radar horizon, and you have more radar options, including more powerful ones. Or you can link the gun with an EO option instead.
One thing I like about the gun is that it has a nearly vertical 90 degree elevation, good for threats dropping high altitude bombs or PGMs.
If you want to quick mount something on the Type 901, they can do it with an HQ-10 or Type 730.
which gun?The gun is much lighter than say a Type 730, Goalkeeper or a Phalanx.
The problem I see with a Type 1130 and an HQ-10 is the gun covers only the front arc of the ship, and the missile the back arc. That may not be a problem for a faster and more maneuverable ship, but if I am fighting fast boats that are encircling the ship, it would be nicer to have a gun option covering all four quadrants of the ship.