Try to find a copy of Chris knoll’s book ’Soviet Cannon’ it’s a good read. I believe you can find a copy on Anna’s archive if you’re unopposed to piracy.
Please keep up the good work! Your weapons documentaries are great ! Happy New Year from the Philippines 🇵🇭 and best wishes to you and your loved ones health wise and money wise!
Yes Goalkeeper is very good. A major drawback was the need for it to penetrate the deck and more integration with the ships electrical systems while the US Phalanx was more bolt on, not as much as some people think due to the weight and fire arc. 30 mm has so much more kinetic energy and a bit more range I would put more trust in it than the 20 mm gun.
@@Emperorvalse "30 mm has so much more kinetic energy and a bit more range I would put more trust in it than the 20 mm gun." Yeah, that's THE big drawback with the Phalanx, as it has been shown in testing that even a direct hit from those 20mm may not be enough to destroy an incoming missile, while a 30mm, even a glancing hit tends to be enough.
Keep at it Matt! Don’t let stuff get ya down mate. Love your content and the video length. I don’t have to spend an hour to get what I want. Ya know? Roll on cat! 😎👍
I think you have the best weapon channel on youtube. Straight useful information, presented straightforward and objectively. You are doing a fantastic job!
The 30 mm caliber is a range of autocannon ammunition. It includes the NATO standardized Swiss 30×173mm (STANAG 4624), the Soviet 30×155mmB, 30×165mm and 30×210mmB, the Czechoslovak 30×210mm, the Yugoslav 30×192mm, the British 30×113mmB, and the French 30×150mmB and 30×170mm cartridges.
@@6uiti 155 mm artillery as 90 24 km with 39 calibre barrel 30 km with 52 . Or you can get 55 calibre. 155 mm x 52 is 8.06 m length . 120 mm Tank barrels come in 52 and 55 calibre. Even with metric you can have a calibre, it's a bit odd but it's not just an American thing . All we have to know is bigger and more is better 😉
25 years ago I was told the reason the ex-Soviet/Russian ships used multiple pairs of AK-630s, was that they were prone to breakage. But if they all worked, they make a supposed wall of bullets to defend the ships. Basically, I respect them, but won't be surprised if they don't work as advertised.
Who told u this? Hollywood or western defence kool aid? Do u know how US army and disney brainwashed american soldiers into believing mg42 doesnt work but the americans learned hard way when they had to
@@hiteshadhikari Who tf ever told US troops of the time that getting shot didn't leave a gaping bullet wound? Seriously? Who? I wanna know so I can go scream at them next but I'm gonna scream at you for a minute here because you're dead wrong. Nobody told US troops that the mg42 wasn't an effective machine gun. They knew that it was effective, they were well aware of that fact, nobody told them otherwise. They knew how to get around them due to Disney programming, they knew how German army companies would employ their machine guns and deploy them as well. Literally NOBODY AT ALL told them they weren't effective, because they knew they were. Glorifying the Nazi regime for using a machine gun is a really good way to get yourself banned on the platform man. I hope you know that.
Well... there is a problem with AK-630, Ukraine kinda proved it during drone attacks. These systems basically were basically blind if target was not picked up by ship's main radar. Seems like it relies on main ship's radar to feed initial data, only then it points targeting radar at target and fires. And generally main radars seem to be very poorly maintained and often turned off on Russian ships. It lacks modern fire control, in any more advanced system operator can quickly take direct control and use IR cameras to target such objects...
That's the problem. Black Sea Fleet has old ships and the new ones that are kinda useful in such scenario are stretched thin. Russia has been focusing on other fleets with modernization efforts and most of it goes to submarines.
@interpl6089 Well, the core of the issue is that Russia is too small for the kind of military they want to have. Soviet Union's shoes are a bit too big to fill. US is like twice the population and many times the GDP. Population wise Russia is roughy the size of France & Germany, 1/4 th of France & Germany's GDP, but they have have 2 times more soldiers and many times more systems, machinery to maintain. Math just doesn't work out. Some corners need to be cut, modernization needs to happen at lower pace than it could, by the time they are done, first of new systems will start becoming obsolete and generate high maintenance costs... it just never ends unless they downsize even more, and grow more organically. But they can't do that while at war either. It's likely that they will be forever doomed to have a portion of military hopelessly outdated or in poor maintenance.
Basically, they are old and the trade-off on the Soviet systems full integration into the ship was that they don’t have standalone radars on the individual guns….. and like I said, the ships themselves are very old.
I cannot say anything about the combat effectiveness or such of the system, but I always found the desing of the AK-630 pretty elegant. I discovered them first, when the East German navy got their four Tarantul-Class missile corvettes back then. Each of them had two AK-630 at the rear of the superstructure.
And the radar on Phalanx doesn't interfere with other systems on US ships. (One of the reasons Moskva was so easy to sink is that they couldn't actually turn everything on at once without some stuff stopping working.) The fact that the Soviets felt a need to have 4x as many CIWS on each ship isn't a reason to brag about its success. It's a confession that they knew it was terribly inaccurate and unlikely to hit anything.
@@guaposneeze no it’s actually a reflection of the difference between western and Soviet naval doctrine. The Soviets knew that they’d be heavily outnumbered and so they packed more CIWS onto their ships. The western Navies could rely on the fact that they are many many many times the size of the Soviet Navy and they don’t have to put all their fire power on one ship because they’re gonna have a dozen ships going up against each Soviet ship.
I don't think there is a huge difference in CIWS. What matters most is detecting the threat, so radar. 30mm+ has the advantage of intelligent munition, but that's about it. keep in mind these are mostly last-ditch pray-and-spray defence systems.
@@Max_Da_G maybe you should read up on it instead. first line of defense are missiles. these systems are meant as a last-step defense, sure they're aimed, but given the speeds involved everyone involved knows this isn't what you rely on to defend yourself. the reason i call it spray and pray isn't because it's unaimed, which it obviously isn't since i literally mentioned the fucking radar. i called it that because bullets take time to reach target and that makes the entire system short-ranged. if you have to rely on this thing to keep you safe, you better pray.
Hey yeah! idk why the algorithm has shunned your channel because i havent seen as much of your stuff pop up these days. You've always seems like a solid guy and your videos are great. I know some other channels have found revived success moving to less uploads but longer and deeper dives. Idk if thats what you want to do but just something ive seen. Good luck man!
The AK-630 suffer from three issues: 1. Reliability. How much of this is due to Russian maintenance, I cannot say. It is entirely possible that, given the kind of attention the US or UK navies give their CIWS systems, it could have on-par reliability, and would need less redundancy to ensure coverage. Note that Moskva had problems keeping even ONE of her 6 AK-630s in operation - but Moskva's readiness (and Russian naval readiness in general) was abysmal to the point an American or British CO who had a readiness report like Moskva's last would have been not only.relived of command, but imprisoned. (A French naval officer might be encouraged to consider the benefits of his service pistol... *before* the formal court of inquiry.) 2. Sensors and fire control. Unlike the Phalanx Blk 1B, which has its own radar system capable of tracking both the target *and* the outgoing rounds (to automatically adjust fire as needed in the midst of am emgagement), the AK-630 has far more limited capability fire control and aiming aids. 3. Muzzle velocity. The 30x165mm round starts out 200 meter/sec slower than the 20x102mm used by the Phalanx, it also doesn't use a tungsten DS round -- the 20mm tungsten ammo typically used by Phalanx retains its velocity better down range. Higher velocity increases hit probability tremendously. Goalkeeper has the same advantages over the AK-630 that Phalanx does, only moreso, while also having the advantage of payload if using HE or HEI ammo (and Western cannon rounds are generally more payload efficient than their Russian counterparts). Now, if you get hit with a burst from an AK-630, it is game over. That's a big and powerful projo, if they get any on you, they're probably going to get several hits. Very few flying things can survive that punishment. But then, 20x102mm is also pretty effective against flying targets. Now where the AK-630 is probablybsuperior to the Phalanx in in surface engagements. The HE and HEI rounds the AK-630 are better suited for destroying small surface craft than 20mm tungsten, and the fire control systems *in surface mode* are roughly comparable (Phalanx uses optical tracking- albeit in multiple spectrA - just as the AK-630, and while it has auto-track, it's still a sailor basically doing the same as a video game.)
That's a misconception. HE rounds or prefragmeted HE rounds are more effective at dealing with missiles instead of solid projectiles. Sabot and tungsten rounds are actually worse.
Sensors and fire control systems depend on the platform. The AK-630 isn't a gun system, it's just a gun. Modern Russian gunboats armed with it have much more advanced fire control system than the Moskva, which was a Frankensteinian mess. Modern and old systems interfering with one another, not functioning properly together.
I read that China is working on a successor to the AK650 that can fight hypersonic missiles, based on an Australian patent. Supposedly the fire rate has to be so high that the barrels get ejected along with the bullet casings after a certain number of rounds fired, in a cassette system.
You're probably thinking of Metal Storm, an Australian designed system where the rounds are loaded stacked inside the barrel, are fired electronically, and can be done so consecutively or near simultaneously (giving a firing rate of approx. 1 million rounds a second).
no. china has the type 1130. which is a 11 barrel system firing 30mm rounds. the thing fires at 11,000+ rounds a minute and the newest version features an attached AESA targeting radar.
Former U.S. navy here. Now while the phalanx is my favorite because well, I was a 5in gunner and worked closely with our ciws guys, the goalkeeper is an amazing system, i was definitely jealous of it multiple times lol. In software, accuracy, reliability, reloading time, and reloading convenience the goalkeeper and phalanx beat the ak-630 every day with i think the goalkeeper coming out with a small lead on the phalanx. The goalkeeper and phalanx radars and combined systems from what ive seen are more responsive, cover more area, and can give the operator a much cleaner picture from what ive seen. The Ak however does win out in volume of fire and sheer number of mounts they have. theyre also way less obtrusive on deck space so they can fit in alot more, and better, places. But if you look at the splash patterns of the other 2 vs the AK, youll see the others, while having lower fire rates, can easily put just as much damage on an individual target. Not sure why theirs throws rounds in such a wide arc, maybe its intentional to increase hit chance? but I'd definitely feel better having an excited r2-d2 or the goalkeeper protecting me than the 630. Though i do like its looks lol
The Meroka even had more fire rate than the kastam. The problem with the Meroka was that the Spanish MOD was at a time were all national defense programs weren’t the priority and the budget was strongly cut
Include some of your older theme music into your intro again I always thought your intros sounded so good- that will assuredly bring back viewers cause people be obsessed with stuff like this
I have to give the top spot to the American Phalanx System - it is designed to be bolted onto any clear space of deck and plugged into the ship's power grid and on-board fire control setup, thus making it completely self-contained. With its own power generator, it can be mounted on a truck trailer as a land-based air defense system where it has proven capable of tracking even artillery projectiles. The Goalkeeper has a bigger 30mm Minigun compared to the Phalanx' 20mm, but it is a turret mount that penetrates the deck. And as for the AK-630, even the bare bones setup requires its own fire-control radar. The Kashtan is very flexible, but that thing is just massive. The DARDO system is nice using twin 40mm L/70 Bofors guns, and they did design a trailer mount for it, but it is large and complex.
The Moskva had three layers of air defense: S-300F for long range, 2x OSA-M for short-range and 6x AK-630 CIWS. The problem: Apparently non of the systems was active / functional at the time of the attack. Pictures of the sinking cruiser showed that the missile systems were all closed.
@@bulthaosen1169 integration is the hardest step of engineering. i hear the different systems interfered with each other & the ship could not communicate while using ciws radar. so they left it off
It really is videos in this format that I like. These documentary type videos on military equipment. As for which is my personal fav?…….for whatever reason I like the goalkeeper.
on an individual basis, I think the Goalkeeper is the better CWIS system, however, assuming proper matinance, (which has proven to be the primary issue with the Russian navy) these things would be a close second if only due to the quantity in which they are mounted.
The best ship point defense system is a layered system where a hostile missile has to defeat each layer in sequence. This in my opinion should ideally be four layers. You would have the long range 'Standard' missile to endeavour to defeat threats at long range, ideally aircraft before they can launch missiles. If threats at that range are undefeated, they get engaged by ESSM or the equivalent, short range missiles that would engage between 15 to 50 kilometers. If those fail to do the job, they would next be engaged by a 57mm or 76mm gun system firing guided maneuvering shells. If that fails to stop the threat, then you have a CWIS like the Phalanx. I am personally partial to the Phalanx myself for a CWIS for several reasons.
Glad to see a new video man! Been subbed for years and always enjoy your content. Did you removed the video on the russian TOS system? I tried to find it a few months ago and couldn't.
Almost all Russian 30 mm guns use the same 30x165 mm ammo, with electric primer for navy and air force, mechanic for ground. The ammo must be able to operate a variety of guns, 1-2-6 barrel, gas or recoil operated, brand new or worn down, in the desert or the Arctic, etc. Hence the excess gunpowder in it, to ensure the gun works, no matter what.
Nice to see you back, Mat - really missed an respectfull treatment of military gear. Social Media went down pretty far in the categorisation of tools after its 'faction' and nothing else. Weird times. Disturbing times.
I'd say the AK-630 is most certainly not the best. Its radar is not the best, its range is shorter, its accuracy is low...but it is effective in the numbers that Russia utilizes it. If Russia improves its radar system, utilizes better burning propellent and lowers the cycling rate from 5K down to about 3K to 2.5K, this weapon system would be so much better. But what do I know...I'm just some guy on the internet.
Propellant is designed the way it is because they require it to remain stable between -50C to +50C, or for American readers, -57F to +122F. They tried different combinations, but stability always suffered which caused it to fail Russian military requirements. Radar system is indeed fairly old. Gun itself is fine. Radar and processing systems and software are what needs replacement, though only if it fails Russian naval requirements. You DO want around 5K/min for such a role. For the same reason M-61A1 gun fires 6k/min: it's some damn fast targets it's trying to hit, so a wall of incoming projectiles is what works better. Hope it helps.
This system has been in service since forever, for the past 3 decades it has been modernized into several different systems with and without missiles.The Kortik was a new missile introduced to the system, the Kashtan demonstrates how 2x30mm gattling + 8 missiles can be used with independent radar, making it a stand alone system......40+ tons though
have seen them try to blow up solami pirate ships and they took way more ammo then you thought they might need. waaay more. target acquisition seemed very slow. considering how slow boats move, you have to assume that tracking aircraft / missiles is even worse.
Updated Goalkeeper is the way to go for CIWS and to zotz lighter vessels, surface and aerial drones (though directed energy systems may be a more economical way to engage drones either a magazine as large as you have electricity). Weight of accurate fire matters as does the distance of intercept from the targeted vessel (less you get pelted and shredded by high speed missile parts). 30 and 35 mm allow use of guided/intelligent rounds as well.
People yammering about the Moskva don't seem to realize that the Moskva wasn't a "first line" ship, and as such had deficiencies like poorly integrated radars etc (you can envision a modern laptop shoehorned into the old systems, sitting on top of the old disused computers)
@@rflats771 Still not an excuse. Do you have any idea how much of the Russian fleet is made up of “vintage” Soviet era ships. If properly maintained and modernized, even older ships can be formidable weapons of war.
with all the technology available why cant they make these types of weapons able to be reloaded below deck. even the us vulcan carries very little ammo and takes almost 30 minutes to reload. would be virtually impossible in battle. at least this one has that shield the crew can stand behind
The problem with this system is the same problem you get with Goalkeeper, it's ac through deck system, consuming a lot of internal space and it relies almost entirely in the host shops radar and computing system for targeting. The theory goes with Phalanx and SeaRAM that is you're down to needing your CIWS to defend your then you have probably taken damage. Which means it's very likely that centralised sensor system is down. Phalanx and SeaRAM are deck mounted and have their own complete sensor and targeting computer built into them, you only need to provide them with power and it works. Although it can (and does) take external sensor data when it can, it doesn't become useless once that one radar dish is damaged, it has it's own search and targeting radars. If America suddenly needed 6 Phalanx systems instead of 2, you just weld another 4 to the deck and run a power cable
Goalkeeper is entirely independent of anything else sensor-wise, being built around a combined double radar, each in different radar bands, and a FLIR. It can (and in many cases is) linked to a ship's Combat Management System, but it doesn´t need it and works perfectly fine without it.
As far as UA-cam goes, I haven't seen other channels cover systems like this at all, so I don't know what who'd competitors be to be honest, I think it's Alphabets leftist dislike of anything weapon related
At 4:32, you state that the electro optical system is capable of targeting surface vessels from 70 kilometers away. How is this possible? Does the gun even reach out that far?
Almost all current Russian 30 mm guns use the same 30x165 mm ammo, with electric primer for navy and air force, mechanic for ground. The ammo must be able to operate a variety of guns, 1-2-6 barrel, gas or recoil operated, brand new or worn down, in the desert or the Arctic, etc. Hence the excess gunpowder in it, to ensure the gun works, no matter what.
The idea of separate trackers and guns is generally a terrible one. getting those rounds on target means that you are trying to cross two lines (actually more like a line and an arc) right at where the target is. With a system like the phalanx you don;t have to worry about the parallax offset and even if the ranging is a little off by a few tens of meters the bullet drop at the range will not be off by much and the stream of rounds will still intersect the target. When you have the gun tens of meters from the radar, you need to very precisely know both the distance of the weapon and the target from the sensor or you will miss by a lot. This kind of arrangement is fine when directing flak but not when directing hit to kill projectiles; and increasing the volume of fire doesn;t improve things by much.
My thoughts exactly! Wikipedia says that a Slava-class - like the Moskva - has six AK630s. I guess a gun can be as good as it wants, it's not much help if you don't know where to point it, or if you are too fatigued to point it in the first place.
Watching that early video footage with the mount doing sustained burst fire, and seeing the barrels already smoking after barely a minute, I have to wonder about barrel durability.
Matsimus, here's some info for you. Today many of this AK-630 systems are modernised by relevantly new Bagira-M high precision optical-elecronic aiming and guidence system. So it's even better now.
Imagine smart bullets being used in a system like this. We're definitely in for some amazingly awesome time in regards to newly coming systems and munitions.
If you have smart bullets you maybe don't need a giant gatling gun turret, or simply can't afford the ammo cost as smart rounds aren't cheap and this goes through a lot.
@JeffBilkins depends on the size of the swarms, and I'd imagine the number of projectiles would decrease saving money. Also, the cost of such things drastically decreased over time.
Here’s what i know: 1) Links used at hi rate of fire are a recipe for frequent stoppages. What’s the MRBF? 2) HE projectiles have poorer hit probability than APDS due to longer time of flight to target. 3) Didn’t see any info on system dispersion, but the firing against the nearly stationary balloon was unimpressive. If your dispersion is 5mils, 1 sigma, you’re going to have trouble hitting small fast targets. 4) No statement was made about whether the system is open loop or closed loop. If you don’t know where the bullets are at target range, you will continue to miss unless you get lucky.
the AK 6-30 is actually pretty advance for its time and better than the phalanx in many ways such as having a higher fire rate and the 30mm debatably being a more reliable way of destroying oncoming projectiles, but the reason why many chose the phalanx as superior is due to its indipendent radar system, the phalanx having its own radar system means it is able to act more indipendently compared to the AK 6-30 which is directly controlled by the host ship's on board radar giving them less flexibility/independence
@@fqeagles21 yes that is true on a individual level, however with modern navies rarely ever operating alone but instead in a battlegroup, that difference becomes negligable, when you have 8-15 ships all firing on incoming projectiles it is not that big of a difference, besides the on board radar are able to track multiple targets so they can still act the same as the phalanx, one can even argue that its less liability and less points of failure Edit: assuming incoming missiles makes it pass the initial missile intercept stage
Ngl, pretty good assessment. Whether other CIWS is better or worse is like saying whether apple or oranges are better. It's just different, imo. The addition of missile system as improvement I think reflects a somewhat natural evolution of modern warfare, considering the ground forces around the world uses missile AD systems instead of relying on Shilkas or Gepards alone. In terms of radar tracking, it is indeed lacking... but considering it is a part of a ship system I would say it doesn't really matter. Rather, if one of multiple AK-630 was disabled by any reason the ship loses only firing capability but not tracking capability. Consider a ship having either : -2 radar 4 AK-630 -4 Phalanx The first option provides 6 targets, 2 critical ones while the second provides 4 equally juicy target. The first system can be easier to disable IF and only IF attacker can pass through the 4 AK-630. Only thing is you'll need enough room on ship for these amount of AD systems. That could explain creation of Kashtan for smaller ships. Just put everything into one 'basket', since you can only fit one 'basket' anyways. I'm not a weapons expert, I'm just a couch potato giving opinions on what I think might work for the militaries.
I think the current status of Moskva (121) shows how effective those are. Lets not sugar coat it that it is not "as effective as most recent systems". It failed, and it failed against attack not even half as intensive as the naval warfare doctrine expected it to be.
@@1584Adventurepretty dumb to cruise around without defenses active when you're in a war that you started. Must have a reason, why it was deactivsted, don't you think? Seems likely it was working badly (so they shut it off when it falsely shot at phantoms to stop annoyances), was not operable due to insufficient maintenance or missing parts or was intentionalky taken offline as too expensive to use "just in case". None of which make the russian navy look good.
@@1584Adventure it was bot on because according to maintenance report when it left the port only 1 turret was operational and parts from other ones were cannibalised to keep it going at limited capacity
Dunno, seems the UK also have an interesting solution brewing with the new line of Frigattes and the bofors 40mk4 cannon with the very adaptive and programmable 3P ammo
I honestly doubt they are nearly as accurate as Phalanx or Goalkeeper. There's also the use of 30mm caliber--probably excessive for intercepting a fragile missile, but results in a lower rate of fire and less ammunition. The mounting of so many of them on Russian warships suggests that they are less effective, not more, since you'd want to spend that weight and deck space on longer-ranged and more effective point defense systems.
ammo takes up more space but that doesn't you have less, just the system needs more space. the range is normal for gun ciws and the rate of fire is fine, faster than anything except the Chinese ciws infact. the problem with the system is Russia's outdated sensors and the fact that its mounted separately from the weapon leading to less accuracy. oh and also russia is pretty bad about maintaining its systems. most of the these on Moskva was non-functional when the ship was sunk.
I fired this AK personally with manual and radar guidance. It can mow down anything within 3km range and even Soviet-era target aquisition is easy as a PC game. Choose target, hit pedal, it's gone. Target lock, etc is automated. Ofc it's old by today's standards and speeds, but more than capable. I think it's still viable against UAVs, surface and ground targets.
western-biased gibberish
How is it biased? Lol I’m literally saying it’s amazing 😂😂😂
Did you even watch the video?
@@trouserarmadillo8616 its just a Bot
The Muskova proves otherwise
@arendpool6456 come on man, there was only one working out of six, that is amazing for Russian maintenance. 😂
I'm a simple man, I see rotary cannon, I like.
AK-630M1-2 is 2 rotary cannons
Try to find a copy of Chris knoll’s book ’Soviet Cannon’ it’s a good read. I believe you can find a copy on Anna’s archive if you’re unopposed to piracy.
revolver cannon, rotary means it turns on a vert. axis
Darn Matsimus going full on out with your uploads today. I haven't seen you this active for years. but great work as always!
Hey, thanks!
Why are there so many Brit’s in the Canadian army?
@@crakkbonebrits aren't doing good
@@_Matsimus_can you please do a video on the German MLG 27 light Naval gun now that gun is a beast of RPMs for the type of gun it is
Anyone else notice the sailor's combat Croc footwear? Love the black socks....
And combined with those shorts makes a very elegant match.
lol!....i thought i was the only one!
Socks for comfortable, crocs is dry faster in case it get wet. Same as Vietnam Navy, they have shoes but pretty like the sandals
Footwear gets waterlogged, and is hard to swim in if they go overboard. Crocs are a great, if ugly solution
Crocs Defense Industries
Had to watch a lot of your videos just for UA-cam to start recommending you. Tough stuff man but keep up the great work!
I appreciate that!
Please keep up the good work! Your weapons documentaries are great ! Happy New Year from the Philippines 🇵🇭 and best wishes to you and your loved ones health wise and money wise!
Love your channel Matt! What I appreciate the most is your objective assessment of weapons systems…no politics involved.
Thank you for doing a presentation on a modern military weapon system without any propaganda, just the facts and genuine footage.
Love the goalkeeper😊
Goalkeeper may indeed be the single most capable CIWS.
Yes Goalkeeper is very good.
A major drawback was the need for it to penetrate the deck and more integration with the ships electrical systems while the US Phalanx was more bolt on, not as much as some people think due to the weight and fire arc.
30 mm has so much more kinetic energy and a bit more range I would put more trust in it than the 20 mm gun.
@@Emperorvalse "30 mm has so much more kinetic energy and a bit more range I would put more trust in it than the 20 mm gun."
Yeah, that's THE big drawback with the Phalanx, as it has been shown in testing that even a direct hit from those 20mm may not be enough to destroy an incoming missile, while a 30mm, even a glancing hit tends to be enough.
i REALLY like your videos man you re doing amazing job . keep it up and happy new year
Thanks, you too!
Good to see you back, and I'm glad you updated your bumper music! very nice!
Glad you like it!
Keep at it Matt!
Don’t let stuff get ya down mate.
Love your content and the video length.
I don’t have to spend an hour to get what I want.
Ya know?
Roll on cat!
😎👍
Much appreciated!
I think you have the best weapon channel on youtube. Straight useful information, presented straightforward and objectively. You are doing a fantastic job!
2:02 30 mm is not .30 caliber .30 caliber is 7.62 mm ...30 mm is 1.1811 caliber
The 30 mm caliber is a range of autocannon ammunition. It includes the NATO standardized Swiss 30×173mm (STANAG 4624), the Soviet 30×155mmB, 30×165mm and 30×210mmB, the Czechoslovak 30×210mm, the Yugoslav 30×192mm, the British 30×113mmB, and the French 30×150mmB and 30×170mm cartridges.
Calibre isalso the length of the barrel . So a 30 mm barrel has a 900 mm length
@@3211SD Caliber is an american thing, MM is metric used by normal humans
@@6uiti 155 mm artillery as 90 24 km with 39 calibre barrel 30 km with 52 . Or you can get 55 calibre. 155 mm x 52 is 8.06 m length . 120 mm Tank barrels come in 52 and 55 calibre. Even with metric you can have a calibre, it's a bit odd but it's not just an American thing . All we have to know is bigger and more is better 😉
@@6uiti So much better to call it a 1.8 pounder or some such.
Already liked and posting a comment for the algorithm and the pre video ad hasn't even ended yet.
25 years ago I was told the reason the ex-Soviet/Russian ships used multiple pairs of AK-630s, was that they were prone to breakage. But if they all worked, they make a supposed wall of bullets to defend the ships. Basically, I respect them, but won't be surprised if they don't work as advertised.
That is all Russian gear.
Who told u this? Hollywood or western defence kool aid?
Do u know how US army and disney brainwashed american soldiers into believing mg42 doesnt work but the americans learned hard way when they had to
@@hiteshadhikari Who tf ever told US troops of the time that getting shot didn't leave a gaping bullet wound? Seriously? Who? I wanna know so I can go scream at them next but I'm gonna scream at you for a minute here because you're dead wrong. Nobody told US troops that the mg42 wasn't an effective machine gun. They knew that it was effective, they were well aware of that fact, nobody told them otherwise. They knew how to get around them due to Disney programming, they knew how German army companies would employ their machine guns and deploy them as well. Literally NOBODY AT ALL told them they weren't effective, because they knew they were. Glorifying the Nazi regime for using a machine gun is a really good way to get yourself banned on the platform man. I hope you know that.
Kalashnikov Concern is the maker of this and it works like AKs do,unbreakable!
Well, they failed to deal with Ukrainian Neptune missiles when the Moskva was sunk, similarly, they seem to be useless against jet ski kamikaze drones
Thank you for all of these fascinating weapons system analyses.
It's nice to see you pumping out vids again
German mlg 27 light Naval Cannon absolutely love the way it fires it sounds so cool
Oto melara 127mm/54 is definitely becoming one of my favorite Naval cannons on top of the 76 mm variant
Good choice!
"I am Heavy Weapons Guy, and THIS is my weapon."
OMG who touched Sasha?!?
Well... there is a problem with AK-630, Ukraine kinda proved it during drone attacks. These systems basically were basically blind if target was not picked up by ship's main radar. Seems like it relies on main ship's radar to feed initial data, only then it points targeting radar at target and fires. And generally main radars seem to be very poorly maintained and often turned off on Russian ships.
It lacks modern fire control, in any more advanced system operator can quickly take direct control and use IR cameras to target such objects...
That's the problem. Black Sea Fleet has old ships and the new ones that are kinda useful in such scenario are stretched thin. Russia has been focusing on other fleets with modernization efforts and most of it goes to submarines.
@interpl6089 Well, the core of the issue is that Russia is too small for the kind of military they want to have. Soviet Union's shoes are a bit too big to fill. US is like twice the population and many times the GDP.
Population wise Russia is roughy the size of France & Germany, 1/4 th of France & Germany's GDP, but they have have 2 times more soldiers and many times more systems, machinery to maintain. Math just doesn't work out. Some corners need to be cut, modernization needs to happen at lower pace than it could, by the time they are done, first of new systems will start becoming obsolete and generate high maintenance costs... it just never ends unless they downsize even more, and grow more organically. But they can't do that while at war either. It's likely that they will be forever doomed to have a portion of military hopelessly outdated or in poor maintenance.
>> 1/4 th of France & Germany's GDP
@@Beneficiis, where exactly are you getting those numbers from?
@orly693 I mean on a technicality russias population has been on a decline.
Basically, they are old and the trade-off on the Soviet systems full integration into the ship was that they don’t have standalone radars on the individual guns….. and like I said, the ships themselves are very old.
I cannot say anything about the combat effectiveness or such of the system, but I always found the desing of the AK-630 pretty elegant. I discovered them first, when the East German navy got their four Tarantul-Class missile corvettes back then. Each of them had two AK-630 at the rear of the superstructure.
Huge difference when comparing the Phalanx and the AK-630. The Phalanx doesn't bounce all over the place when firing.
And it seemed like the AK-630 was rocking with the boat along the waves. Even when firing it wasn't stabilised to the horizon.
And the radar on Phalanx doesn't interfere with other systems on US ships. (One of the reasons Moskva was so easy to sink is that they couldn't actually turn everything on at once without some stuff stopping working.) The fact that the Soviets felt a need to have 4x as many CIWS on each ship isn't a reason to brag about its success. It's a confession that they knew it was terribly inaccurate and unlikely to hit anything.
And it works
@@guaposneeze no it’s actually a reflection of the difference between western and Soviet naval doctrine. The Soviets knew that they’d be heavily outnumbered and so they packed more CIWS onto their ships. The western Navies could rely on the fact that they are many many many times the size of the Soviet Navy and they don’t have to put all their fire power on one ship because they’re gonna have a dozen ships going up against each Soviet ship.
both are outmatched vs new flak systems. they take up little real estate on the ship though
Excellent content as ever sir!
Thank you kindly!
I don't think there is a huge difference in CIWS.
What matters most is detecting the threat, so radar.
30mm+ has the advantage of intelligent munition, but that's about it.
keep in mind these are mostly last-ditch pray-and-spray defence systems.
No. Those are well-aimed. You can read up on how the system actually works. And it doesn't "spray-and-pray".
@@Max_Da_G maybe you should read up on it instead.
first line of defense are missiles. these systems are meant as a last-step defense, sure they're aimed, but given the speeds involved everyone involved knows this isn't what you rely on to defend yourself.
the reason i call it spray and pray isn't because it's unaimed, which it obviously isn't since i literally mentioned the fucking radar. i called it that because bullets take time to reach target and that makes the entire system short-ranged. if you have to rely on this thing to keep you safe, you better pray.
Love your content, keep it up :)
👍
Glad you enjoy it!
Newer systems are more capable, but these still work wonders. They have an excessive numbers of these close in systems on their ships.
They work wonders at completely failing
@@Nr15121eventually they get them working properly. Nothing is perfect
@@Phil-D83 they've had 50 years
@@Nr15121Dude, the British Navy literally engaged a Pirate ship on the Med and the CIWS on it was out of action for the next 6 months.
@@pilotmanpaul the royal navy has 2 semi functional destroyers dude they’re almost as bad an example as the reds
Genuinely my favorite CIWS. Thanks as always Matt ❤
Edit: HEY! ROY'S TRYIN' HIS BEST 😂
I’m on for the ride. Thank you for sharing your content.
Awesome! Thank you!
Hey yeah! idk why the algorithm has shunned your channel because i havent seen as much of your stuff pop up these days. You've always seems like a solid guy and your videos are great. I know some other channels have found revived success moving to less uploads but longer and deeper dives. Idk if thats what you want to do but just something ive seen. Good luck man!
The AK-630 suffer from three issues:
1. Reliability. How much of this is due to Russian maintenance, I cannot say. It is entirely possible that, given the kind of attention the US or UK navies give their CIWS systems, it could have on-par reliability, and would need less redundancy to ensure coverage. Note that Moskva had problems keeping even ONE of her 6 AK-630s in operation - but Moskva's readiness (and Russian naval readiness in general) was abysmal to the point an American or British CO who had a readiness report like Moskva's last would have been not only.relived of command, but imprisoned. (A French naval officer might be encouraged to consider the benefits of his service pistol... *before* the formal court of inquiry.)
2. Sensors and fire control. Unlike the Phalanx Blk 1B, which has its own radar system capable of tracking both the target *and* the outgoing rounds (to automatically adjust fire as needed in the midst of am emgagement), the AK-630 has far more limited capability fire control and aiming aids.
3. Muzzle velocity. The 30x165mm round starts out 200 meter/sec slower than the 20x102mm used by the Phalanx, it also doesn't use a tungsten DS round -- the 20mm tungsten ammo typically used by Phalanx retains its velocity better down range. Higher velocity increases hit probability tremendously.
Goalkeeper has the same advantages over the AK-630 that Phalanx does, only moreso, while also having the advantage of payload if using HE or HEI ammo (and Western cannon rounds are generally more payload efficient than their Russian counterparts).
Now, if you get hit with a burst from an AK-630, it is game over. That's a big and powerful projo, if they get any on you, they're probably going to get several hits. Very few flying things can survive that punishment.
But then, 20x102mm is also pretty effective against flying targets.
Now where the AK-630 is probablybsuperior to the Phalanx in in surface engagements. The HE and HEI rounds the AK-630 are better suited for destroying small surface craft than 20mm tungsten, and the fire control systems *in surface mode* are roughly comparable (Phalanx uses optical tracking- albeit in multiple spectrA - just as the AK-630, and while it has auto-track, it's still a sailor basically doing the same as a video game.)
That's a misconception. HE rounds or prefragmeted HE rounds are more effective at dealing with missiles instead of solid projectiles. Sabot and tungsten rounds are actually worse.
What is the gun depression , because i think that could also be an issue with Naval USV's
@@bulthaosen1169 Harpoon might be shot down with 30mm HEF rounds but good luck stopping a 3-ton Oniks.
Sensors and fire control systems depend on the platform. The AK-630 isn't a gun system, it's just a gun. Modern Russian gunboats armed with it have much more advanced fire control system than the Moskva, which was a Frankensteinian mess. Modern and old systems interfering with one another, not functioning properly together.
Much too nuanced for UA-cam 😂
just subbed ya channel matsi, for what ever thats worth 😄
I read that China is working on a successor to the AK650 that can fight hypersonic missiles, based on an Australian patent. Supposedly the fire rate has to be so high that the barrels get ejected along with the bullet casings after a certain number of rounds fired, in a cassette system.
You're probably thinking of Metal Storm, an Australian designed system where the rounds are loaded stacked inside the barrel, are fired electronically, and can be done so consecutively or near simultaneously (giving a firing rate of approx. 1 million rounds a second).
no.
china has the type 1130. which is a 11 barrel system firing 30mm rounds. the thing fires at 11,000+ rounds a minute and the newest version features an attached AESA targeting radar.
Former U.S. navy here. Now while the phalanx is my favorite because well, I was a 5in gunner and worked closely with our ciws guys, the goalkeeper is an amazing system, i was definitely jealous of it multiple times lol. In software, accuracy, reliability, reloading time, and reloading convenience the goalkeeper and phalanx beat the ak-630 every day with i think the goalkeeper coming out with a small lead on the phalanx. The goalkeeper and phalanx radars and combined systems from what ive seen are more responsive, cover more area, and can give the operator a much cleaner picture from what ive seen. The Ak however does win out in volume of fire and sheer number of mounts they have. theyre also way less obtrusive on deck space so they can fit in alot more, and better, places. But if you look at the splash patterns of the other 2 vs the AK, youll see the others, while having lower fire rates, can easily put just as much damage on an individual target. Not sure why theirs throws rounds in such a wide arc, maybe its intentional to increase hit chance? but I'd definitely feel better having an excited r2-d2 or the goalkeeper protecting me than the 630. Though i do like its looks lol
@@spazman8675309 thanks for your service brother
I wouldn't know which one is the best ciws but definitely the quirkiest is the Spanish Meroka
The Meroka even had more fire rate than the kastam. The problem with the Meroka was that the Spanish MOD was at a time were all national defense programs weren’t the priority and the budget was strongly cut
Include some of your older theme music into your intro again I always thought your intros sounded so good- that will assuredly bring back viewers cause people be obsessed with stuff like this
Daleks. "Eliminate!"
I have to give the top spot to the American Phalanx System - it is designed to be bolted onto any clear space of deck and plugged into the ship's power grid and on-board fire control setup, thus making it completely self-contained. With its own power generator, it can be mounted on a truck trailer as a land-based air defense system where it has proven capable of tracking even artillery projectiles. The Goalkeeper has a bigger 30mm Minigun compared to the Phalanx' 20mm, but it is a turret mount that penetrates the deck. And as for the AK-630, even the bare bones setup requires its own fire-control radar. The Kashtan is very flexible, but that thing is just massive. The DARDO system is nice using twin 40mm L/70 Bofors guns, and they did design a trailer mount for it, but it is large and complex.
Didn't the Moskova carry 6 of them but only one was working at the time of the sinking and then it wasn't turned on.
The Moskva had three layers of air defense: S-300F for long range, 2x OSA-M for short-range and 6x AK-630 CIWS.
The problem: Apparently non of the systems was active / functional at the time of the attack.
Pictures of the sinking cruiser showed that the missile systems were all closed.
@@hermes7587 lol
@@hermes7587why was it even there then?
@@bulthaosen1169 integration is the hardest step of engineering. i hear the different systems interfered with each other & the ship could not communicate while using ciws radar. so they left it off
@@mxecho no I meant why was the ship there if it was already half broken down.
It really is videos in this format that I like. These documentary type videos on military equipment.
As for which is my personal fav?…….for whatever reason I like the goalkeeper.
All depends on the sensors and software right?!
Great video!
Thanks!
5:14 Daleks thinking...'' And why did we decide to have a loo plunger on our heads '' ?
Excellent weapons system. Like the GAU -8. Can't live with it - Can't live without it.
Firepower is one thing, directing it, another😏
Is this from the series "stupid Russians"? 😁
@ We all remember highlights like "look! we have called our START2 breach hazelnut, because is is as smart or useful as one"😏
@@goiterlanternbase Hmm, so you accept for 1 second that hazelnut will be used with just kinetic dummy's in serious cases?
Great to watch your work again! Keep it up,we are getting spoiled 😅
Thank you so much 😀
on an individual basis, I think the Goalkeeper is the better CWIS system, however, assuming proper matinance, (which has proven to be the primary issue with the Russian navy) these things would be a close second if only due to the quantity in which they are mounted.
Could anyone explain why the muzzle flash is green?
Shorts, socks and crocs; nice
The best ship point defense system is a layered system where a hostile missile has to defeat each layer in sequence. This in my opinion should ideally be four layers. You would have the long range 'Standard' missile to endeavour to defeat threats at long range, ideally aircraft before they can launch missiles. If threats at that range are undefeated, they get engaged by ESSM or the equivalent, short range missiles that would engage between 15 to 50 kilometers. If those fail to do the job, they would next be engaged by a 57mm or 76mm gun system firing guided maneuvering shells. If that fails to stop the threat, then you have a CWIS like the Phalanx. I am personally partial to the Phalanx myself for a CWIS for several reasons.
personally looks more cooler than the phalanx
Probably not as good Orc technology
But also works less then Phalanx
@@boomerhgt But it's still better than the rainbow elves.
Glad to see a new video man! Been subbed for years and always enjoy your content. Did you removed the video on the russian TOS system? I tried to find it a few months ago and couldn't.
I didn't
Looks more like a flame thrower than a CWIS
Rate of fire
Almost all Russian 30 mm guns use the same 30x165 mm ammo, with electric primer for navy and air force, mechanic for ground. The ammo must be able to operate a variety of guns, 1-2-6 barrel, gas or recoil operated, brand new or worn down, in the desert or the Arctic, etc. Hence the excess gunpowder in it, to ensure the gun works, no matter what.
Nice to see you back, Mat - really missed an respectfull treatment of military gear. Social Media went down pretty far in the categorisation of tools after its 'faction' and nothing else. Weird times. Disturbing times.
I'd say the AK-630 is most certainly not the best. Its radar is not the best, its range is shorter, its accuracy is low...but it is effective in the numbers that Russia utilizes it. If Russia improves its radar system, utilizes better burning propellent and lowers the cycling rate from 5K down to about 3K to 2.5K, this weapon system would be so much better. But what do I know...I'm just some guy on the internet.
I believe the propellant quality is intentional, to be able to maintain production even in war time, when quality control goes out the window.
Propellant is designed the way it is because they require it to remain stable between -50C to +50C, or for American readers, -57F to +122F. They tried different combinations, but stability always suffered which caused it to fail Russian military requirements.
Radar system is indeed fairly old. Gun itself is fine. Radar and processing systems and software are what needs replacement, though only if it fails Russian naval requirements.
You DO want around 5K/min for such a role. For the same reason M-61A1 gun fires 6k/min: it's some damn fast targets it's trying to hit, so a wall of incoming projectiles is what works better.
Hope it helps.
This system has been in service since forever, for the past 3 decades it has been modernized into several different systems with and without missiles.The Kortik was a new missile introduced to the system, the Kashtan demonstrates how 2x30mm gattling + 8 missiles can be used with independent radar, making it a stand alone system......40+ tons though
can it hit anything?
you mom for sure
Yes and whatever's behind it.
Blub blub, the russian navy has proven those are useless!
Blub blub, the russian navy has already proven those are useless!
have seen them try to blow up solami pirate ships and they took way more ammo then you thought they might need. waaay more. target acquisition seemed very slow. considering how slow boats move, you have to assume that tracking aircraft / missiles is even worse.
Updated Goalkeeper is the way to go for CIWS and to zotz lighter vessels, surface and aerial drones (though directed energy systems may be a more economical way to engage drones either a magazine as large as you have electricity). Weight of accurate fire matters as does the distance of intercept from the targeted vessel (less you get pelted and shredded by high speed missile parts). 30 and 35 mm allow use of guided/intelligent rounds as well.
People yammering about the Moskva don't seem to realize that the Moskva wasn't a "first line" ship, and as such had deficiencies like poorly integrated radars etc (you can envision a modern laptop shoehorned into the old systems, sitting on top of the old disused computers)
It was the flagship.
There is no excuse.
@ only for the Black Sea fleet, not the Russian navy overall
No, it sank because the Russians didn’t properly maintain the ship. Had she been in full working order, she wouldn’t have gone down so easily.
@ which goes back to the fact that it was a second line 80's vintage ship
@@rflats771 Still not an excuse. Do you have any idea how much of the Russian fleet is made up of “vintage” Soviet era ships. If properly maintained and modernized, even older ships can be formidable weapons of war.
Great idea, but what’s the chance they get enough maintenance to work reliably?
For the algorithm. Cheers. 🥃
I think it will do it job, the problem will be more the sensor or/and fire control system.
I guess there not good at stopping boat drones
*they are not
Needless to say we only get to hear about it when they fail. As if the BBC or CNN would report all the failed attacks.
@@kunstsein haven't stopped one yet
@@kunstsein Grammer nazi over here
@@richardschipper5989 Mind the asteriks^^ Okay, it was a vague reply. It was about @seanitoism totally misplaced use of the adverb "there".
good video Josh
with all the technology available why cant they make these types of weapons able to be reloaded below deck. even the us vulcan carries very little ammo and takes almost 30 minutes to reload. would be virtually impossible in battle. at least this one has that shield the crew can stand behind
Mats I think your back your on my fyp everyday now, not gonna lie you disappeared for a while but not anymore
Naval ships say: brrrrrrt
The problem with this system is the same problem you get with Goalkeeper, it's ac through deck system, consuming a lot of internal space and it relies almost entirely in the host shops radar and computing system for targeting.
The theory goes with Phalanx and SeaRAM that is you're down to needing your CIWS to defend your then you have probably taken damage.
Which means it's very likely that centralised sensor system is down.
Phalanx and SeaRAM are deck mounted and have their own complete sensor and targeting computer built into them, you only need to provide them with power and it works.
Although it can (and does) take external sensor data when it can, it doesn't become useless once that one radar dish is damaged, it has it's own search and targeting radars.
If America suddenly needed 6 Phalanx systems instead of 2, you just weld another 4 to the deck and run a power cable
Goalkeeper is entirely independent of anything else sensor-wise, being built around a combined double radar, each in different radar bands, and a FLIR. It can (and in many cases is) linked to a ship's Combat Management System, but it doesn´t need it and works perfectly fine without it.
As far as UA-cam goes, I haven't seen other channels cover systems like this at all, so I don't know what who'd competitors be to be honest, I think it's Alphabets leftist dislike of anything weapon related
Is it me or does the barrell not look particularily stable?
The system might be okayish, but the background work (preparing the ammo belts and links,maintenance ) is a huge task.
For such task exist special tool - машинка Ракова. It is simple device, for different calibres: 7,62x54R, 12,7x108, 23mm and 30mm
At 4:32, you state that the electro optical system is capable of targeting surface vessels from 70 kilometers away. How is this possible? Does the gun even reach out that far?
2:27 Not the tactical crocks😭
Yer doing good man keep it up
Look at the muzzle flash from that thing. Like a fire breathing Dragon.
at least a little effective against digital cameras and night vision systems
Almost all current Russian 30 mm guns use the same 30x165 mm ammo, with electric primer for navy and air force, mechanic for ground. The ammo must be able to operate a variety of guns, 1-2-6 barrel, gas or recoil operated, brand new or worn down, in the desert or the Arctic, etc. Hence the excess gunpowder in it, to ensure the gun works, no matter what.
The idea of separate trackers and guns is generally a terrible one. getting those rounds on target means that you are trying to cross two lines (actually more like a line and an arc) right at where the target is. With a system like the phalanx you don;t have to worry about the parallax offset and even if the ranging is a little off by a few tens of meters the bullet drop at the range will not be off by much and the stream of rounds will still intersect the target. When you have the gun tens of meters from the radar, you need to very precisely know both the distance of the weapon and the target from the sensor or you will miss by a lot. This kind of arrangement is fine when directing flak but not when directing hit to kill projectiles; and increasing the volume of fire doesn;t improve things by much.
Didnt the moskva have a few? :)
they are good but without any maintenance funds they didn't work on the moskva so it just tanked the missiles
Getting a bit rusty at the moment.....
It was an outdated ship lucky the Russians have enough ships left to defend against the NATO agressor.
My thoughts exactly! Wikipedia says that a Slava-class - like the Moskva - has six AK630s. I guess a gun can be as good as it wants, it's not much help if you don't know where to point it, or if you are too fatigued to point it in the first place.
they were all shut off at the time of the attack
seem to work really well in Sea power
Should have called it the AK-360.
Such a missed opportunity
YES I WILL ADOPT THAT NAME LMAO
I like your content matty.
2:29 What in the slavic squat secret sauce are these shoes? I want some.
Watching that early video footage with the mount doing sustained burst fire, and seeing the barrels already smoking after barely a minute, I have to wonder about barrel durability.
Russian equipment always seems to have such loose tolerances when you see it operating
thats funny how can you tell
is it the same gun the Mig27 had?
We get: R2-D2 with a stiffy
They get: Sneezing Dalek
2:28 those shells look wicked
@@joegagnon2268 agreed!
Given the shot dispersion in the video clips, I'd be surprised if they could hit the board side of a whale.
I mean, filling a decent sized patch of sky with shot is kinda the point in having such a high rate of fire.
Love the vid, a phalanx one would be good
Ukraines land navy would say nyet
Matsimus, here's some info for you.
Today many of this AK-630 systems are modernised by relevantly new Bagira-M high precision optical-elecronic aiming and guidence system. So it's even better now.
Imagine smart bullets being used in a system like this. We're definitely in for some amazingly awesome time in regards to newly coming systems and munitions.
If you have smart bullets you maybe don't need a giant gatling gun turret, or simply can't afford the ammo cost as smart rounds aren't cheap and this goes through a lot.
@JeffBilkins depends on the size of the swarms, and I'd imagine the number of projectiles would decrease saving money. Also, the cost of such things drastically decreased over time.
Smart bullets? You mean programmable ammo?
@@bulthaosen1169I imagine he means guided projectiles.
Become cost prohibitive real soon against cheap drones...
Here’s what i know:
1) Links used at hi rate of fire are a recipe for frequent stoppages. What’s the MRBF?
2) HE projectiles have poorer hit probability than APDS due to longer time of flight to target.
3) Didn’t see any info on system dispersion, but the firing against the nearly stationary balloon was unimpressive. If your dispersion is 5mils, 1 sigma, you’re going to have trouble hitting small fast targets.
4) No statement was made about whether the system is open loop or closed loop. If you don’t know where the bullets are at target range, you will continue to miss unless you get lucky.
the AK 6-30 is actually pretty advance for its time and better than the phalanx in many ways such as having a higher fire rate and the 30mm debatably being a more reliable way of destroying oncoming projectiles, but the reason why many chose the phalanx as superior is due to its indipendent radar system, the phalanx having its own radar system means it is able to act more indipendently compared to the AK 6-30 which is directly controlled by the host ship's on board radar giving them less flexibility/independence
Blub blub, the russian navy has proven those are useless!
Hence the phalanx or goalkeeper are better in a real scenario
@@fqeagles21 yes that is true on a individual level, however with modern navies rarely ever operating alone but instead in a battlegroup, that difference becomes negligable, when you have 8-15 ships all firing on incoming projectiles it is not that big of a difference, besides the on board radar are able to track multiple targets so they can still act the same as the phalanx, one can even argue that its less liability and less points of failure
Edit: assuming incoming missiles makes it pass the initial missile intercept stage
@TheKitsuneHina true, what do you think about kashtan m?
Plus the goalkeeper and phalanx can be Linked with the self-contained radar on the system and with the ships radar
Ngl, pretty good assessment. Whether other CIWS is better or worse is like saying whether apple or oranges are better. It's just different, imo.
The addition of missile system as improvement I think reflects a somewhat natural evolution of modern warfare, considering the ground forces around the world uses missile AD systems instead of relying on Shilkas or Gepards alone.
In terms of radar tracking, it is indeed lacking... but considering it is a part of a ship system I would say it doesn't really matter. Rather, if one of multiple AK-630 was disabled by any reason the ship loses only firing capability but not tracking capability. Consider a ship having either :
-2 radar 4 AK-630
-4 Phalanx
The first option provides 6 targets, 2 critical ones while the second provides 4 equally juicy target. The first system can be easier to disable IF and only IF attacker can pass through the 4 AK-630. Only thing is you'll need enough room on ship for these amount of AD systems. That could explain creation of Kashtan for smaller ships. Just put everything into one 'basket', since you can only fit one 'basket' anyways.
I'm not a weapons expert, I'm just a couch potato giving opinions on what I think might work for the militaries.
I think the current status of Moskva (121) shows how effective those are. Lets not sugar coat it that it is not "as effective as most recent systems". It failed, and it failed against attack not even half as intensive as the naval warfare doctrine expected it to be.
The system wasnt on when the Moskva was sunk. Kinda hard to make the comparison you want
The AK 630s failed… because if you don’t turn them on, they won’t shoot anything.
This concludes my TED talk, any questions ?
@@1584Adventurepretty dumb to cruise around without defenses active when you're in a war that you started.
Must have a reason, why it was deactivsted, don't you think? Seems likely it was working badly (so they shut it off when it falsely shot at phantoms to stop annoyances), was not operable due to insufficient maintenance or missing parts or was intentionalky taken offline as too expensive to use "just in case". None of which make the russian navy look good.
@@1584Adventure it was bot on because according to maintenance report when it left the port only 1 turret was operational and parts from other ones were cannibalised to keep it going at limited capacity
Dunno, seems the UK also have an interesting solution brewing with the new line of Frigattes and the bofors 40mk4 cannon with the very adaptive and programmable 3P ammo
I've always wondered about this weapon.
I honestly doubt they are nearly as accurate as Phalanx or Goalkeeper. There's also the use of 30mm caliber--probably excessive for intercepting a fragile missile, but results in a lower rate of fire and less ammunition.
The mounting of so many of them on Russian warships suggests that they are less effective, not more, since you'd want to spend that weight and deck space on longer-ranged and more effective point defense systems.
ammo takes up more space but that doesn't you have less, just the system needs more space. the range is normal for gun ciws and the rate of fire is fine, faster than anything except the Chinese ciws infact. the problem with the system is Russia's outdated sensors and the fact that its mounted separately from the weapon leading to less accuracy. oh and also russia is pretty bad about maintaining its systems. most of the these on Moskva was non-functional when the ship was sunk.
I fired this AK personally with manual and radar guidance. It can mow down anything within 3km range and even Soviet-era target aquisition is easy as a PC game. Choose target, hit pedal, it's gone. Target lock, etc is automated. Ofc it's old by today's standards and speeds, but more than capable. I think it's still viable against UAVs, surface and ground targets.