PLAN Fleet supply vessels


Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
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.

the high angle elevation capability is pretty nice, but I do think having a radar integrated is better as that means the radar doesn't need to pick and choose which target to illuminate, especially in a saturation attack. It probably also shortens the reaction time as there's not much processing loop to go through.

p.s. I found
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
about Type 730's origin that I'm referencing.



well, yes, but I presume it isn't as painless as putting a Phalanx or SeaRAM. Having a drop-in CIWS like Phalanx seems to be a good idea, especially for ships that are pressed into service/ current ships that operate in really high threat environments.


which gun?



for the CIWS part, I do agree with you. However, if you're just fighting fast boats, why not put H/PJ-17 in the blind spot? that's even cheaper and it's sufficient for the job.

730 and 1130 probably has a better way of absorbing the shock and vibration. While 1130 has 10,000 rounds a minute two AK630 can achieve that, and you have to figure the weight of a 1130 turret vs. two H/PJ-13. The gatling gun on the AK630 is still used with the Kashtan and Palma CIWS.

Type 730 and 1130 isn't search independent like Phalanx or Goalkeeper because the radar on it is a tracking radar. In the case of the 730 and 1130, you need the Type 364 to search for targets and assign them to the CIWS. The Type 347G on top of the CIWS (right hand corner of the image) --- same as the one minding the main guns on the 054A and 056 series, mind you --- tracks and locks at the target. There is no search radar on the CIWS, and the only other thing attached to it is an EO/IR.

ZanPs1Y.jpg

This isn't like the Phalanx where the R2D2 housing contains both a search radar (1) and a tracking radar (2). Note the drum (4) and the underlying parts (6 & 7).

unnamed (12).jpg


While the Goalkeeper CIWS has been cited for its physical similarity with the Type 730, it differs in one important aspect and its black sausage thing on the right hand corner of the picture: a search radar. The round disc next to it, which is similar to the 730's Type 347G, is a monopulse tracking fire control radar.

7618a9c24f51b41786d3c5a5ecad30cf.jpg


The reason for this is that many ships doesn't have something like the anti-clutter Type 364 radar that covers all the quadrants of the ship from a height, including the rear arc. The radar specializes in searching for antiship missiles flying low in a sea skimming phase.

Type_364_radar.jpg

Here you see it on top of the first funnel of the ship, while there is another radar on the back and a Type 349 covering the front.

PLANS_Hulun_Lake_(AOE-965)_20190801.jpg


But if you take this AOE, there is no radar with a similar purpose.


aoe8.jpg

The search radar on the Phalanx helps with all the blind spots and searches for antiship missiles. That's also the reason for SeaRAM which is namely the Phalanx R2D2 with these component radars, mated with an 8 launcher RIM-116. Its also why the PLAN never bother with its own equivalent because of the reasons above makes making one moot.

Now go back to the cutaway of the Phalanx, what makes you think its a drop in? Its not. There is a lot of stuff underneath it. The whole turret is about over 6000kg, and that's also in line with the Goalkeeper (6300kg) so I would expect that with the Type 730 and the 1130 would even be heavier. The AK630 weighs about 2,000kg with ammo.
 

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
730 and 1130 probably has a better way of absorbing the shock and vibration. While 1130 has 10,000 rounds a minute two AK630 can achieve that, and you have to figure the weight of a 1130 turret vs. two H/PJ-13. The gatling gun on the AK630 is still used with the Kashtan and Palma CIWS.

Type 730 and 1130 isn't search independent like Phalanx or Goalkeeper because the radar on it is a tracking radar. In the case of the 730 and 1130, you need the Type 364 to search for targets and assign them to the CIWS. The Type 347G on top of the CIWS (right hand corner of the image) --- same as the one minding the main guns on the 054A and 056 series, mind you --- tracks and locks at the target. There is no search radar on the CIWS, and the only other thing attached to it is an EO/IR.

View attachment 70851

This isn't like the Phalanx where the R2D2 housing contains both a search radar (1) and a tracking radar (2). Note the drum (4) and the underlying parts (6 & 7).

View attachment 70845


While the Goalkeeper CIWS has been cited for its physical similarity with the Type 730, it differs in one important aspect and its black sausage thing on the right hand corner of the picture: a search radar. The round disc next to it, which is similar to the 730's Type 347G, is a monopulse tracking fire control radar.

View attachment 70849


The reason for this is that many ships doesn't have something like the anti-clutter Type 364 radar that covers all the quadrants of the ship from a height, including the rear arc. The radar specializes in searching for antiship missiles flying low in a sea skimming phase.

View attachment 70846

Here you see it on top of the first funnel of the ship, while there is another radar on the back and a Type 349 covering the front.

View attachment 70847


But if you take this AOE, there is no radar with a similar purpose.


View attachment 70848

The search radar on the Phalanx helps with all the blind spots and searches for antiship missiles. That's also the reason for SeaRAM which is namely the Phalanx R2D2 with these component radars, mated with an 8 launcher RIM-116. Its also why the PLAN never bother with its own equivalent because of the reasons above makes making one moot.

Now go back to the cutaway of the Phalanx, what makes you think its a drop in? Its not. There is a lot of stuff underneath it. The whole turret is about over 6000kg, and that's also in line with the Goalkeeper (6300kg) so I would expect that with the Type 730 and the 1130 would even be heavier. The AK630 weighs about 2,000kg with ammo.


About Phalanx, I think it's a drop-in because you don't need deck penetration to mount it. The whole thing is self-contained and probably only needs power and an operator console to function. If I'm PLAN planning office, I'd probably look into having a Phalanx type self-contained CIWS just in case I need to quickly refit conscripted merchant ships when things go hot.

For AK-630, yes 2 of those can equal the output of 1 type 1130, but if you actually read
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I linked before it claims the reason PLAN prefers Type 1130 is because of AK-630/ H/PJ-13's mediocre dispersion (resulting in a lower hit rate) and it being prone to jamming due to the below deck ammo supply. That also appears to be the reason refitted 053H3s have new CIWS that combines H/PJ-13 gun and Type 730/1130-ish ammo feed; to solve the jamming problem.

Russia still uses the Gatling gun from AK-630 because that's what they have and they probably deem it adequate. PLAN on the other hand wants something better, that's why there's type 730/1130. The only plus side for AK-630/ H/PJ-13 would be its cost, nothing else. H/PJ-13 not being put on new frontline ships pretty much confirms that.
 

Tam

Colonel
Registered Member
About Phalanx, I think it's a drop-in because you don't need deck penetration to mount it. The whole thing is self-contained and probably only needs power and an operator console to function. If I'm PLAN planning office, I'd probably look into having a Phalanx type self-contained CIWS just in case I need to quickly refit conscripted merchant ships when things go hot.

For AK-630, yes 2 of those can equal the output of 1 type 1130, but if you actually read
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I linked before it claims the reason PLAN prefers Type 1130 is because of AK-630/ H/PJ-13's mediocre dispersion (resulting in a lower hit rate) and it being prone to jamming due to the below deck ammo supply. That also appears to be the reason refitted 053H3s have new CIWS that combines H/PJ-13 gun and Type 730/1130-ish ammo feed; to solve the jamming problem.

Russia still uses the Gatling gun from AK-630 because that's what they have and they probably deem it adequate. PLAN on the other hand wants something better, that's why there's type 730/1130. The only plus side for AK-630/ H/PJ-13 would be its cost, nothing else. H/PJ-13 not being put on new frontline ships pretty much confirms that.


Phalanx still weighs over 6 tons for the upper part, not including the lower part, of which the sheer amount of batteries means quite a bit of lower deck weight. I am not sure how you can fit that on any deck without significant reinforcement. Can you grab any ship and drill a hole on the deck plating to put it?

The cost has more to do with the on board radar and EO/IR on the Type 730/1130 than the gun, mount and feed. What would the 730B cost for example, without the Type 347G radar and EO/IR, which will be costed separately in the invoice.

The problem I see with the Type 701 and the Type 071 is that you cannot mount a fore and aft CIWS, and cover the arc to the sides of the ship due to the funnel and superstructure blockage. Another problem is that putting the CIWS on the center for the weight balance on a ship with a good amount of beam means the deck blockage would prevent depression of the gun, which can be a problem when the antiship missile gets closer. This means you have to mount a CIWS on what amounts to four corners of the ship. If the ship is big enough, you might be able to handle the weight of about 6 to 7 tons on CIWS on all four corners. But if not, the four 2 ton CIWS at the four corners of the superstructure will give better arc coverage than two 7 ton CIWS, on top of overall lower top weight with the four 2 ton CIWS vs. two 7ton CIWS.

Monetarily, a 071 or 701 has a lower build cost than a frontline PLAN surface warship. But when an 071 is carrying hundreds of marines, tanks, helicopters, LCACs, and a 701 is carrying all its replenishment cargoes, those ships become far more valuable in the front, even so than another front line ship. They all become equally high valued assets. In fact the very question why you want these ships to have a better CIWS system points to the real value of the ships. I would not think that PLAN would rationally give these ships crap CIWS if they were that valuable.

Article from the Taiwan website is a bit flawed with regarding the H/PJ-13 specs. It quotes the rate of fire of the AK630 (3000 RPM) not the rate of fire of the AK630M (4500 to 5000 RPM). The problem is that the original AK630 hasn't been built since 1979, and every AK630 built after that year is the M variant. That will include the AK630s that is supplied to the PLAN on the Project 956s twenty years later.

The ballistic accuracy tests sounds to me that it was done with solid projectiles. No doubt about it, that the 730/1130 are superior in accuracy and dispersion thanks to the split mount design. Do note however that in combat, the AK630 and by extension, the H/PJ-13 uses HE-FRAG shells which reduces the accuracy requirement somewhat, and some dispersion is not too bad to have if you have errors in the targeting in the first place.

The issue with the 730/1130 and the AK630/H/PJ-13 is that their ammo types are incompatible despite being 30mm in paper caliber. If the 730/1130 is like the Goalkeeper, it would have at least three different sets of ammo, starting with a 420g API, a 360g HE, and a discarding sabot about 225g or 235g. I am pretty sure the discarding sabot is confirmed in photographs (by78 posted in this forum). In comparison the H/PJ-13 has this 390g HE-FRAG and a 390g FRAG tracer. Logistically, that is enough to keep the H/PJ-13 from other ships where you prefer to a logistic commonality.

Going forward, the article in the Taiwan website already showed the split mounted 730/PJ-13 hybrid, so it's really isn't that new, and it was installed in 2017. That probably may be the future turret CIWS for both the 071 and 701 in new build or retrofit. But if the PLAN brass demands greater logistically commonality with the shells, four lightened 730Bs might be the better proposition.
 
Last edited:

by78

Lieutenant General
Newly released magazine scans. A variant of the last image has been shared before.

51133109263_3f946b7304_k.jpg

51133672334_b7af226bc4_k.jpg

51132895976_94cc86443d_k.jpg
 

by78

Lieutenant General
@xyqq,

Preventative posting. Click here for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that shouldn't be shared here.

For the very few of you who don't already know, here's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which is updated frequently with mostly boring images. Here's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which has even more boring images than the English version.
 
Last edited:

Top