Featured Pakistan Navy Type 054AP Frigates - Update, News & Discussion

[MastanKhan]

It is a pointless exercise. Gun-based CIWS are not particularly great against Hypersonics, or even high-speed subsonic missiles. They will cause significant damage to the vessel even if intercepted. A subsonic target drone crashed into the hull of a Ticonderoga after being intercepted by a Phalanx, it killed a few sailors since it managed to pierce it. In the same way, the soviets launched a Termit against a corvette with a gun CIWS, it destroyed the ship. The Phalanx is also significantly more capable than the AK-630. Adding an AK630 on to the ship also complicates ammo supply line, guidance, radars, illuminators, etc. This is why the US switched to RAM, the Chinese use a mixed loadout on their higher-end vessels, or just missile-based PMDS on their lighter ones, alongside Yarmook Batch 2 getting missile-based PMDS. Even F22Ps would be significantly better off with RIM-116, they are basically sitting ducks in our threat environment. Azmats get their survivability from their small size and agility.

Hi,

Thank you for your post. Most people don't understand that even after the intercept and incoming missile blown away to bits---those bits are still flying forward at that speed.

The worst of those bits is the highly flammable missile fuel---now after the explosion---it is out of the container and flying free---. So wherever it lands---it will create fires.

 

[jamal18]

Hi,

Thank you for your post. Most people don't understand that even after the intercept and incoming missile blown away to bits---those bits are still flying forward at that speed.

The worst of those bits is the highly flammable missile fuel---now after the explosion---it is out of the container and flying free---. So wherever it lands---it will create fires.

I am told that some of the exocets that destroyed British ships in the Falkland war didn't explode. A fire was caused by their unspent fuel.

 

[MastanKhan]

I am told that some of the exocets that destroyed British ships in the Falkland war didn't explode. A fire was caused by their unspent fuel.

Hi,

It could have happened---but I do not remember---but I do understand that the damage from the splashing fuel fire is tremendous and possibly more dangerous than a direct hit.

The direct hit stays in the same area and so does the fire resulting from it---most of the times.

But a fire from splashing fuel is everywhere---. It does not allow for a comparatively easier fire fighting response.

The casualties---rather than being at one place---they would be all over the ship----creating more problem

 

[jamal18]

Hi,

It could have happened---but I do not remember---but I do understand that the damage from the splashing fuel fire is tremendous and possibly more dangerous than a direct hit.

The direct hit stays in the same area and so does the fire resulting from it---most of the times.

But a fire from splashing fuel is everywhere---. It does not allow for a comparatively easier fire fighting response.

The casualties---rather than being at one place---they would be all over the ship----creating more problem

Also a significant danger of secondary explosions.

 

[ali_raza]

Hi,

It could have happened---but I do not remember---but I do understand that the damage from the splashing fuel fire is tremendous and possibly more dangerous than a direct hit.

The direct hit stays in the same area and so does the fire resulting from it---most of the times.

But a fire from splashing fuel is everywhere---. It does not allow for a comparatively easier fire fighting response.

The casualties---rather than being at one place---they would be all over the ship----creating more problem

isnt the ship moving while misile coming in straight line

 

[Tornado23]

isnt the ship moving while misile coming in straight line

Missile tracks the ship and moves with it to hit it.

 

[MastanKhan]

Also a significant danger of secondary explosions.

Hi,

That is why the open deck concept was changed to closed space.

I recall when around 10 years ago---I made that statement about fire from fuel---@Khafee had corrected my about closed working quarters on warships.

 

[Tank131]

It is a pointless exercise. Gun-based CIWS are not particularly great against Hypersonics, or even high-speed subsonic missiles. They will cause significant damage to the vessel even if intercepted. A subsonic target drone crashed into the hull of a Ticonderoga after being intercepted by a Phalanx, it killed a few sailors since it managed to pierce it. In the same way, the soviets launched a Termit against a corvette with a gun CIWS, it destroyed the ship. The Phalanx is also significantly more capable than the AK-630. Adding an AK630 on to the ship also complicates ammo supply line, guidance, radars, illuminators, etc. This is why the US switched to RAM, the Chinese use a mixed loadout on their higher-end vessels, or just missile-based PMDS on their lighter ones, alongside Yarmook Batch 2 getting missile-based PMDS. Even F22Ps would be significantly better off with RIM-116, they are basically sitting ducks in our threat environment. Azmats get their survivability from their small size and agility.

Hi,

Thank you for your post. Most people don't understand that even after the intercept and incoming missile blown away to bits---those bits are still flying forward at that speed.

The worst of those bits is the highly flammable missile fuel---now after the explosion---it is out of the container and flying free---. So wherever it lands---it will create fires.

Im quite aware of the shortcomings of gun based PDWS, the reality is that something is better than nothing. So unless there is a pdms available for the Yarmooks, this is a moot point. The Phalanx being superior to the AK630 is also not the point. The point is the location of the PHALANX on the Yarmooks is a design flaw for the ship allowing only 40% of it to be able to be defended by the weapon. As for heavy missiles still being a threat to them, yes, despite having a ciws successfully intercept a missile, the wreckage of tue missile can still damage and potentially sink the ship, BUT it also has the potential to save the ship. Additionally, one forgets that in addition to handling air defense duties, gun based CIWS are very effective against surface threats (small fast boats) as well, which can be threats to larger vessels. Something an OPV would be able to use.

 

[ali_raza]

Missile tracks the ship and moves with it to hit it.

yes but once its hit its in pieces while ship still moving

 

[Tornado23]

yes but once its hit its in pieces while ship still moving

Are you referring to it being intercepted by CIWS? If so then not really.

Nowadays, ashm travel at speeds of mach 0.8 to mach 10+. So if it was intercepted and destroyed by CIWS, you would still have debris moving at mach 0.8+ towards the ship which is moving some 24kts?

 

[ali_raza]

Are you referring to it being intercepted by CIWS? If so then not really.

Nowadays, ashm travel at speeds of mach 0.8 to mach 10+. So if it was intercepted and destroyed by CIWS, you would still have debris moving at mach 0.8+ towards the ship which is moving some 24kts?

u r right but its some miles between the debris and the mother ship

 

[Tornado23]

u r right but its some miles between the debris and the mother ship

It can cover ground quickly when the debris is travelling at such speeds

 

[MastanKhan]

It can cover ground quickly when the debris is travelling at such speeds

Hi,

Plus the missile is leading the target---ie---where the target would be at the time of the strike.

so many scenarios to consider.

 

[JohnWick]

Hi,

Plus the missile is leading the target---ie---where the target would be at the time of the strike.

so many scenarios to consider.

Hi,

Somewhat out of topic question, but,
Pakistan is getting
VT-4 and Z-10 tanks for army
J-10. and even J-20 s for AF
Type 54, Type 039 subs and even type 052DL destroyers for Navy
Why china is making us a formidable fighting beast ?

 

[Abid123]

Hi,

Somewhat out of topic question, but,
Pakistan is getting
VT-4 and Z-10 tanks for army
J-10. and even J-20 s for AF
Type 54, Type 039 subs and even type 052DL destroyers for Navy
Why china is making us a formidable fighting beast ?

Who said we are getting J-20? They are not for export.