GarryB 11/07/24, 03:08 pm
Actually it is rather amusing that with new command detonated air burst 30mm and even 23mm cannon shells, deck mounted 23mm cannon and 30mm gatlings might become more widely used.
The whole point of the 6 barrel AK630, which spits out between 5 and 6 thousand rounds per minute is intended to send a burst of cannon shells around the point of aim, so if the target manouvers between the time the rounds are fired and the intercept point, then there is still a good chance of a hit because there are shells all round the point of aim.
Interestingly for lighter patrol type ships they also had the lighter AK-306 which still has 6 barrels and uses the same ammo but only fires at about 1,000 rounds per minute and does not carry as much ready to fire ammo being a lighter cheaper mount that does not bother with water cooled barrels etc.
I would argue the lighter gun loaded with command detonated air burst shells might be rather better suited to engaging small light drone targets... and might be better at engaging water surface targets too.
Deck mounted 23mm cannon with night vision optics might be rather useful too.
But of course 57mm guns would have greater reach and with airburst rounds and tracking shells going out as well as targets closing in would enable detonation of the shells at the optimal time without precision timing or precise calculations when the shells are fired.
Fire a burst of shells to fly around the expected future position of the target (for when the shells arrive), and airburst them to shower that intercept box with fragments to shred the targets inside... instead of firing thousands of rounds in 200-300 round bursts at each target you might end up firing 40-50 rounds per target.
Also instead of having a super expensive super precise timer in each shell (which is destroyed with each use and makes the ammo expensive to use), you can have powerful radar sensors and laser range finders and LIDAR sensors and as your shells get close to the target send a laser or radar pulse to detonate the shells at the optimal distance. The flight time to the target might be a few seconds so the intercept box is much smaller because there is less time for the target to manouver or evade.
For instance if a drone is 4km away from me and I fire a rifle bullet of optimised shape and propellant charge, it might take 5 or more seconds for the bullet I fire to reach the drone and hit it. Now in that five seconds the drone could do all sorts of things including climb or descend, turn left or turn right, speed up or slow down. It might even stop and move to a hover or even start flying backwards. It could also perform any combination of those manouvers... which creates a box of where it might be after I have fired and in the five seconds it takes for my bullets to arrive.
With airburst exploding shells with a forward cone of fragments designed to hit and damage targets I could fire rather less bullets and still provide coverage of that intercept box... but more importantly I can continue to monitor the target while my rounds are in flight, so I might delay detonating some of those rounds to let them get closer and hit the target with a more concentrated burst of fragments.
If some of those rounds have some ability to manouver... I don't mean turn 90 degrees and dogfight the target... just turn a few degrees in flight to follow the actual movement of the target I could fire even fewer rounds and still get good hits on target.
Of course two obvious problems at sea in this situation is it is critical to see the target as early as possible, but also that you need to distinguish your enemies drones and missiles and aircraft from your own drones and missiles and aircraft.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
from 2 July 2024
Amphibious Assault Ship)
