Thumbs up if you muted the "music" after a while. Most annoying thing I've ever heard. Sounds like it's from some sort of martial arts computer game and it really sucks.
Much as I am a lover of Russian weaponry, I must say, most of their videos (except this one) feature terrible music. You guys needs to cut down on the music. I would prefer to here the staccato of a gatling gun firing 3000 rds/min rather than listen to some terrible music. The sound of a gun firing is music to my ears.
But still the friction with the air, at such high velocities,would still give it a high IR sig, but much much less than one with a burning engine. And if it is maneuvering without an engine, it would bleed energy and slow down drastically.
the main problem of ship defense systems is that in the final approach the missile changes its course radical, it will try to avoid the defense of the target, btw by that time the engine is cold... it is flaying in ballistic mode.
With increasing speed of ASCM, all navies should move over to dual-sensor (IR + UV) guided anti-missile missiles with high velocity (Mach 3.5+) and high maneuverability. This would ensure close to 100% single shot kill probability. They can also have a semi-active radar homing capability as well, to further increase kill probability. It would make it a tri-sensor missile. The missile could use SARH to get close to the target, then the passive sensors could take over.
It is easier to engage and destroy supersonic missiles than subsonic ones as they have a very bright infra-red signature. They can be destroyed by using IR-guided anti-missile missiles, ship-borne versions of sidewinders. They may give little time to react, but they can be engaged more successfully using aforesaid type of missiles. It is much more difficult to intercept low-flying subsonic missiles. Supersonic missiles cannot fly as low as sub-sonic missiles and thats another advantage.
Frankly I doubt that your statement that sub-sonics can fly lower than hypersonic missiles has any basis, and the IR signature depends on specific engine power setting in the final approach, wouldn't you say?
You could ask any military guy and I am sure he would concur with me. It is simple physics. I think supersonics can be made to fly as low as subsonics. Subsonic engine heat signature even at highest setting will be lower than supersonics because of the physics involved. Of course there are missiles (soviet sizzler, a variant of klub) which flies at supersonic speeds during final approach only.
Again I don't think you read what I wrote - it depends on the specific engine power developed during final approach, so that if the missile is supersonic and the engine power is low, then the IR signal from the engine plume would be about the same as with a subsonic missile. Of course if the engine is at full possible thrust, the IR signature will be larger, but my point was it will give a larger "visible" target but that target will be in engagement range for a far shorter time.
To achieve supersonic speeds, especially Mach 3+, you will either need a ramjet like Brahmos or a rocket engine as in the case of the Sizzler variant of the Klub. And Ramjets and Rocket engines burn a lot of fuel to achieve Mach 3+,and have a bright IR signature, compared to a turbofan engine on a subsonic cruise missile. Of course, you could travel at supersonic speeds (not exceeding Mach 2+) using supercruising non-afterburning turbofans which would give a lower IR signature.
But then a supercruising turbofan while having a low IR signature compared to a rocket engine(RE) or a ramjet cannot take a missile beyond Mach 2.5+, actually current engines cannot go beyond Mach 1.5+ while supercruising, anything more, you have to turn on the afterburners, which give a bright IR signature comparable to a rocket engine. Of course you could use a turbojet similar to the one on Mig-25 Foxbat and achieve Mach 3, but then again you get a big IR signature.
For any given speed, a certain amount of fuel needs to be burnt, and if you want to travel at Mach 3+, you have to burn an amount of fuel which will give out a high IR profile. Mach 2 and Mach 1 and below require less energy/fuel and so the IR sig will be softer or lesser. You cant travel at M3 and expect to do that with an IR sig that you get at M1. We still dont have an efficient engine which can give small IR signature at M3.
Yes, one advantage with Mach 3 missiles is that the engagement time is very short. And if it is doing evasive maneuvers, it increases the interception difficulty. Suppose a missile flying at Mach 3, decides to jettison the engine during the final approach and fly using the residual kinetic energy, and is able to maintain an average Mach 2 throughout the last 10 kms, and is also indulging in evasive maneuvers, that will be a difficult target.
I have no quarrel with your assesments (and I mostly concur with them) but then again I think we both were talking past each other, not to each other. Yes, faster is IR brighter, (the missile nosecone will also glow if the missile flies fast for any significant time) so the tradeoff is easier to detect target that stays in engagement range for a shorter time, or a less bright target that is in engagement range longer.
@arutixar from weapons alone (since we don't know it's fire control system and radar accuracy and detection resolution) the kashtan definitely wins by far... since it has 2 30mm gatling cannons compared to just 1 30mm avenger gatling cannon, plus missile mount.
the thing however is that the western NATO naval defense system usually consider CIWS as an absolute last resort weapon only used if EVERYTHING else in the defensive layer (like AEGIS) failed to intercept the threat with their missiles.
@IonoTheFanatics so while goalkeeper doesn't have a missile mount, the ships in western navies respond with long range, medium range, and short range missiles as well... usually part of the AEGIS in order to intercept the threat, if EVERYTHING else completely fails to intercept it... the CIWS will intercept it as a last resort.
the only difference is that unlike Kashtan they are not put in the same weapon mount, instead the short/medium range missiles usually have their own separate weapon pod.
@IonoTheFanatics Hmmm that is true, it has two. But the GoalKeeper system is known to be conservative with its ammo because its very accurate (in other words it might not need 2 guns to do the same thing). I doubt the Kashtan can fire its gatling guns independent at 2 different targets.
@arutixar it can't, not to the best of my knowledge at least... but theoretically with 2 cannons, it can saturate the missile path with more munitions which is useful if the missile employs last minute evasive pattern like all modern anti ship missiles do.
frankly with more and more supersonic and lately hypersonic missiles even, becoming a new threat to ships the ship's defense are much more focused on the missiles (RAM, and VLS for NATO ships) than the guns.
@lionsforlyons True, but there are high-supersonic ones as well. Cruise missiles generally are subsonic for range. AShM's, in particular Russian ones in fact have higher range than that of subsonic counterparts.
Tomahawk isnt exactly an AShM. It can be used as one though no doubt, but other than its the Harpoon.
All in all the reason for the high speed tendency is the drastically reduced response time, thus increasing the chances of a successful hit and higher damage.
Really interesting shows of Russian arms since the CCCP fell. Used to be you only caught the matinee on May day in Red Square. Not so damn much secrecy now I suppose...
Everyone argues who has the better military weaponry, the U.S. or Russia. The truth of the matter is, they steal technology from one another so often, that most of the weapons produced by either side are hybrids of both countries.
@mAxZubov Don't know what you're on about but what I meaned was the attempted russian invasion of finland during WWII, called the Winter War. Russia lost to Finland!
@DreadX10 Rus didn't los.According to peaceful treaty signed in Moscow on 12 March on russian terms. USSR obtained new territories: 1.Karelian Isthmus (finnish border was moved from 18 kms from Leningrad to 150 kms), 2.Part of Laplandia(Old Salla), 3.Petsamo District, 4.Islands in Eastern part of Finnish Bay (Gogland Island), 5. Khanko Peninsula was taken for rent for 30 years. 6. Ladoga Lake (largest in Europe) stopped beeing on finnish-russian border and became entirely internal russian lake.
@DreadX10 What's about Winter War in your stupid opinion taken from american stupid films? Learn history moron. On 7 of March 1940 Finnish delegation came to moscow to sign peaceful treaty. It was signed on 12 March in Moscow on Russian terms. Russian army fulfilled all its objectives. Mannerheim line was broken and Finnish Government started to beg for peace. So, learn facts and read books instead of watching stupid TV held by antirussian propagandistic morons.
@AlexanderTch Russia has never lost to Fin.What about Winter War in your stupid opinion taken from american stupid films? Learn history moron. On 7 of March 1940 Finnish delegation came to moscow to sign peaceful treaty. It was signed on 12 March in Moscow on Russian terms. Russian army fulfilled all its objectives. Mannerheim line was broken and Finnish Government started to beg for peace. So, learn facts and read books instead of watching stupid TV held by antirussian propagandistic morons.
@DreadX10 According to peaceful treaty signed in Moscow on 12 March on russian terms. USSR obtained new territories: 1.Karelian Isthmus (finnish border was moved from 18 kms from Leningrad to 150 kms), 2.Part of Laplandia(Old Salla), 3.Petsamo District, 4.Islands in Eastern part of Finnish Bay (Gogland Island), 5. Khanko Peninsula was taken for rent for 30 years. 6. Ladoga Lake (largest in Europe) stopped beeing on finnish-russian border and became entirely internal russian lake.
@DreadX10 According to peaceful treaty signed in Moscow on 12 March on russian terms. USSR obtained new territories: 1.Karelian Isthmus (finnish border was moved from 18 kms from Leningrad to 150 kms), 2.Part of Laplandia(Old Salla), 3.Petsamo District, 4.Islands in Eastern part of Finnish Bay (Gogland Island), 5. Khanko Peninsula was taken for rent for 30 years. 6. Ladoga Lake (largest in Europe) stopped beeing on finnish-russian border and became entirely internal russian lake.
@bemo13175 The Gathling system is known scinse 19 century and is one of the sandard weapon systems, being used by other countries. US and Russia used this one system, but the ingeneering desisions are quite different. F.e. in US dun is used electrical rotation of the gun, but in russian gun GSh-6-23 is piromeckanical rotation.
It sure is fun to flex muscles and boast, and argue who's better, but I'm not all too sure either nation ever gets to find out which one has the better guns.
What's the point of all these toys when nuclear deterrence is unavoidably strong these days (enough strategic nuclear weapons in subs to wipe most life off the globe for starters) and M.A.D. doctrine is a strong part of both countries' nuclear strategy.
Ah well, skipping the comments, these videos are cool I guess.
@xDuffman3000x : and i guess it is "bad" just because you say so, correct? Look, it was the Soviets and not the Americans who first developed the CIWS notion: repeat Soviets first, not the U.S.A.
The day any American bomber or fighter comes close to Russian fleets for the attack, or any U.S. anti-shipping missile is fired at them, and the Kashtan fails to stop them, you might have some space to make such claim -a "bad" "copy"-.
@Airgunhead1234 Your comment raped your own ignorant ass, communism is a UTOPIA(read not viable) and true democracy you have no idea what it is as you only elect new MUPPETS, the true string pullers remain the SAME! Democracy...only for those for who IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
@kunstAlberst "GOD BLESS RUSSIA AND ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX COUNTRIES!!!"
I think that everybody who wants to pick a fight on religious grounds should be packed up and sent to a large island, with all the weaponry that they want. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant Christians, Sunni and Shia Muslims, Jews, etc.
Then the sane portion of the world can sit back and watch the fireworks, while the problem takes care of itself.
if you are referring to the constant flame coming out of the muzzle then it is not from a flame thrower its due to mindl boggling rate of fire of 3000 or so rounds a minute
Quick question, why did they put the tunguska missiles on the gun? Would it not have been better to have the gun in one place then have a wire to the missiles which would be on another place?
If something happens (like someone shooting at the thing, or an accident), the whole system is down.
@brocalfur yes, but it is still strange to place the tunguska on the CIWS. In the US Phalanx + SeaRam there is two seperate launcher so one can continue without the other.
Gotta love these brainwashed nationalists. Who gives a fuck how good your weapons are, your country is a disgustring, writhing piece of shit on the verge of economic collapse.
@kunstAlberst@kunstAlberst You say that yet Japan beat Russia single-handidily back in the 1900's. Also a war between America and Russia would leave everyone dead, but Russia and America are pretty much allies. there's not much point in pointing the "I'm better than you" finger, as far as Russia's military might, yes with the improving economy and new oil refinery up in Siberia they'll be back in their world power chairs, even the older weaponry shows great longevity.
@kunstAlberst I suggest you pay attention to the fact that regardless of impact Japan a relatively new industrialized nation, with a brand new no so experienced Navy trounced the Russian Navy with minimal damage. Also the Serbian Genocide (Im pretty sure your talking about Sebrenica) was not committed by the US or Western powers, it was by Bosnian Serb's. However the commander of the group responsible slipped away, but seeing as he had a history of strokes he is most likely dead at this point.
@kunstAlberst By the way not all Muslims = terrorists that idea alone is quite hilarious, genocide took place, and therefore the UN/NATO jumped in as usual.
@kunstAlberst What you have just outlined is nationalism. on your part alone. Formal or not Russia and America are allied, as far a forgiveness for "massacre" a quick look back to WWII see's everyone doing the same thing, I.E. Bombing of civilian populous to lower combatants morale. Also the Yugoslavian Ground forces killed about the same number of people, and half of the blame for the NATO civilian casualties falls on Britain who even after being told to stop using cluster bombs, kept using em.
@kunstAlberst hey kunst, me and my family are Italians, but Orthodoxs, we don't want the rule of Rome on our beliefs... But don´t mess with Italy, or I will kick your butt
@kunstAlberst it will be my pleasure to have a sporting friendly fight with you, but I agree, NATO did absolutely wrong in Serbia. It was nice to see the "stealth" plane parking in a Serbian hill.
@kunstAlberst NATO is an abortion, intended to face "Russian Invasion" to Europe...Europe was never in danger, but it is now, being USA the hidden enemy... look how USA forbids Germany to make its own Air Force, Eurofighter won't work and is a multination project, so it doesn't count. Germany, Italy and Spain must get rid of US bases, they say that are protecting, but they are ocuppying territories.
@kunstAlberst u stupid faggot. u cant even talk like a human u piece of shit. u pretend to be a russian but a fucking poor serbian peasant. now go keep fucking your sister goat..
Although, im not quite sure any existing CIWS can protect from Russian AShMs. I mean most of them are high supersonic while the rest uses subsonic. supersonic and even hypersonic missiles give the CIWS nearly no time to react. Missiles are detected only like 5-7 miles away, if its at 3Mach speed, you got only like 10 seconds. Phalanx has the missile only in range for 2 seconds. It can deal with one, probably, but no more than that. subsonic missiles are in range for around 10s.
The US Navy found out in the mis 2000's that Phalanx fails to intercept the Russian ASM's.
The same for SM-2 ship defence system and sea sparrow. Even a Phalanx add-on, the seaRAM is very questionable. That's why the US Navy made a new development called the RM-116 in the hope that it stands a chance to intercept these Russian ASM's. The US is worried about these Russian ASM's. Reaction time lies between 8 to 11 seconds.
Russia couldn't compeed with the US Navy pound for pound and that's why Russia developed these ASM's. It's a cheap way of dealing with a large Navy. They will always get a hit no matter how good defences are. You just fire them in large numbers. The worry the US had that Iran might have them is one of the reasons the US attacked Iraq. The US could use the Iraq border in case of a war with Iran. That way the US Navy ships keep afloat.
It doesn't matter if hyper- or subsonic...both are deadly. The Club missiles (SS-N-27 Sizzler) are subsonic but possibly more feared than Oniks or Granit. The flight path is unpredictable (launch will be detected in one direction but the impact is possibly on the other side), it's stealthy, sea-skimming and makes a supersonic sprint near its target.
@steamingpoopfart Not really. It depends on a whole range of aspects from what the actual missile is to even stuff like air humidity and time of day.
Technically there is NO WAY you can detect a passive guidance missile that is 5-10m from the water, its behind the LOS of any radar until it gets as close as like 15km. In some cases the missile being hypersonic you have like 20 seconds tops to respond in ideal conditions.
68mi might be for the carrier itself assuming it gets information from supporting ships on the incoming threat.
However that scenario is very unlikely and utterly stupid.
The first targets are the support ships starting from the outer lines of detection/defense. More over, in a real combat situation jammers go in first to disrupt communications and you never fire 1 missile per ship, more like 5 out of which no more than 2 are expected to make it all the way.
@Buuub08 I wondered why US doesn't make any supersonic antiship missiles? the speed of the Russian antiship missiles makes it so effective and superior than US ones.
@FeelFree3 Well, Russians do have the edge in missile and rocket tech. Ever wondered why its Russian RD-180 engines (license built) which carry US satellites into space?
While the technology is certainly there, supersonic and hypersonic missiles come with their own set of problems. The US simply doesnt have the experience with them yet. Missiles (in general) isnt the only area where Russians have the edge atm. You can also add cavitation, some aspects of aviation, APS and others.
@FeelFree3 U.S. doesn't lack the technology but it has a different military doctrine than Russia in many regards. U.S. missiles like Harpoon and Tomahawk while slower have a superb accuracy. Russian missiles though faster and bigger but I have to wonder if they're so quick that they don't have enough time to course correct as needed. They're probably accurate enough to hit a several hundred meter warship but how battle tested are their missiles? Also, U.S. just tested laser CIWS system.
@Yakko77 umm. russian missiles can knock out other missiles and do it better than any US counterpart. what makes you think that hitting a huge aircraft carrier would be a problem?
@parapobabam Tested and proven when? The U.S. defense budget, even with all the cuts Obama wants to impose on it to fund his social welfare utopia is still above the next 5 if not 10 nations combined and yet you assume Russian superiority just because.. what? Russia stomped tiny Georgia or it use of WWII tactics against Chechnya in its use of mass artillery to take out towns with a few insurgents? Please, enlighten me on Russia's modern military prowess and it's PROVEN capability.
The range is determined by the manufacturer. Its typically around 4000m. CIWS is basically a visual range defense system. US Phalanx CIWS has no missiles. The missiles are a separate system and not suitable for all incoming missile threads, they are more of a AA system, just as on the Russian one. I see nothing wrong with putting 2 systems (3 systems actually since there are 2 guns) on 1 turret. This is easier and more compact. Older CIWS simply had no missiles to combine them with, thats all.
The Navy has been focusing more on missiles for close defense over the past decade or so, so don't mistake the lack of guns to be a sign of weak defenses. Phalanx, RAM, and ESSM provide a very effective layered defense.
I would like to see a CIWS system combining either the 25mm GAU-12/U with RIM-116 missiles, replacing both the standalone Phalanx gun and RAM launcher but there are other priorities for our military these days.
Sooner or later we are going to have some laser based CIWS too.
Yep. We are rowing in the same direction. All i said is that Phalanx back in the days had no missiles to combine it with. Kashatan is a much younger and advanced system having 2 guns and 2 missile platforms on a single turret. It saves up space. Im sure others will make something similar soon enough.
As for lasers... dunno, they have downsides which are unacceptable. Maybe in some 50+ years. We'll see, we'll see.
It operates fast. Its the missile reload that you see not the gun pop-up. Guns are out and scanning 24/7. In addition this CIWS has 8 missiles which reload. US CIWS has no missiles and has only 1 gun. 2 guns give twice the rate of fire and twice the effectiveness.
CIWS has no pre-set range and there is no such thing for them as "long range". Their limit (the limit of 30mm guns) is around 4000m. Thats where they all operate. Missiles are for longer range.
In fact this is the best CIWS around. Just as many other Russian weapons which surpass the counterparts by even decades. Unfortunately our public prefers to hear that USA is the best in everything. Yet by just comparing specifications or weapons, Russians beat USA in almost everything from guns to ICBMs. To many Russian developments USA is/was decades from even coming close. Ground vehicle APS is a good example. They have fielded APS for almost THIRTY years, we are still in prototype phase.
Where do you hear all of this nonsense? Everything from guns to ICBMs? Russian tech has it days, but they are not decades ahead of us in any area, and we are ahead of them in many ways.
Phalanx was superior in accuracy and tracking to the Russian AK-630 CIWS system. Kashtan here is certainly an improvement and brings much more firepower. However the USN now has the RIM-116 RAM and RIM-162 ESSM for close defense.
this thing looks like a beast compared to the phalanx
catklyst 2 months ago
молотилочка! блин!
zerg1965 4 months ago
Metal Gear Rex
sigmar555 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I mean that are necessary alians invating for our countries for to begin do as one command :)
dutu74 5 months ago
Comment removed
dutu74 5 months ago
Put it on a bipedal frame and there`s your first mechwarrior... :)
zedd81 5 months ago
кибернетический комплекс!!!
MegaPypkin 6 months ago
I hope one day USA and Russia will stop showing to each other whos dick is bigger..
I'm sick and tired of all that crap
As a human being I want all leave in peace and respect our differences...
Is it soo hard?
I believe americans as all Russians do want PEACE not fucking WAR !
wg390 7 months ago
@wg390 sahut the hell , american dog
PS2djX 5 months ago
Thumbs up if you muted the "music" after a while. Most annoying thing I've ever heard. Sounds like it's from some sort of martial arts computer game and it really sucks.
langhammars 7 months ago
This Russian mashine shoot over 1000 shoots in minute
The rest is up yo you
wg390 7 months ago
@wg390 CADS-N-1 Kashtan uses two six-barrelled 30 mm gatling gun with a general rate of fire 10,000–12,000 rds/min! Not 1000!
YaropolkMSK 7 months ago
@YaropolkMSK
Thanks man !
I accept your correction
you just prooved I'm outdated
In my time I corrected all thru soviet спутники
wg390 7 months ago
@YaropolkMSK
You are right
I was talking about only 2 barrelles not six
wg390 7 months ago
Much as I am a lover of Russian weaponry, I must say, most of their videos (except this one) feature terrible music. You guys needs to cut down on the music. I would prefer to here the staccato of a gatling gun firing 3000 rds/min rather than listen to some terrible music. The sound of a gun firing is music to my ears.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
@5211centrumcz
But still the friction with the air, at such high velocities,would still give it a high IR sig, but much much less than one with a burning engine. And if it is maneuvering without an engine, it would bleed energy and slow down drastically.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
the main problem of ship defense systems is that in the final approach the missile changes its course radical, it will try to avoid the defense of the target, btw by that time the engine is cold... it is flaying in ballistic mode.
zelotbrood 8 months ago
With increasing speed of ASCM, all navies should move over to dual-sensor (IR + UV) guided anti-missile missiles with high velocity (Mach 3.5+) and high maneuverability. This would ensure close to 100% single shot kill probability. They can also have a semi-active radar homing capability as well, to further increase kill probability. It would make it a tri-sensor missile. The missile could use SARH to get close to the target, then the passive sensors could take over.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
It is easier to engage and destroy supersonic missiles than subsonic ones as they have a very bright infra-red signature. They can be destroyed by using IR-guided anti-missile missiles, ship-borne versions of sidewinders. They may give little time to react, but they can be engaged more successfully using aforesaid type of missiles. It is much more difficult to intercept low-flying subsonic missiles. Supersonic missiles cannot fly as low as sub-sonic missiles and thats another advantage.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
@harishkumar09
Frankly I doubt that your statement that sub-sonics can fly lower than hypersonic missiles has any basis, and the IR signature depends on specific engine power setting in the final approach, wouldn't you say?
52111centrumcz 8 months ago
@52111centrumcz
You could ask any military guy and I am sure he would concur with me. It is simple physics. I think supersonics can be made to fly as low as subsonics. Subsonic engine heat signature even at highest setting will be lower than supersonics because of the physics involved. Of course there are missiles (soviet sizzler, a variant of klub) which flies at supersonic speeds during final approach only.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
@harishkumar09
Again I don't think you read what I wrote - it depends on the specific engine power developed during final approach, so that if the missile is supersonic and the engine power is low, then the IR signal from the engine plume would be about the same as with a subsonic missile. Of course if the engine is at full possible thrust, the IR signature will be larger, but my point was it will give a larger "visible" target but that target will be in engagement range for a far shorter time.
52111centrumcz 8 months ago
@52111centrumcz
To achieve supersonic speeds, especially Mach 3+, you will either need a ramjet like Brahmos or a rocket engine as in the case of the Sizzler variant of the Klub. And Ramjets and Rocket engines burn a lot of fuel to achieve Mach 3+,and have a bright IR signature, compared to a turbofan engine on a subsonic cruise missile. Of course, you could travel at supersonic speeds (not exceeding Mach 2+) using supercruising non-afterburning turbofans which would give a lower IR signature.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
@52111centrumcz
But then a supercruising turbofan while having a low IR signature compared to a rocket engine(RE) or a ramjet cannot take a missile beyond Mach 2.5+, actually current engines cannot go beyond Mach 1.5+ while supercruising, anything more, you have to turn on the afterburners, which give a bright IR signature comparable to a rocket engine. Of course you could use a turbojet similar to the one on Mig-25 Foxbat and achieve Mach 3, but then again you get a big IR signature.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
@52111centrumcz
For any given speed, a certain amount of fuel needs to be burnt, and if you want to travel at Mach 3+, you have to burn an amount of fuel which will give out a high IR profile. Mach 2 and Mach 1 and below require less energy/fuel and so the IR sig will be softer or lesser. You cant travel at M3 and expect to do that with an IR sig that you get at M1. We still dont have an efficient engine which can give small IR signature at M3.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
@52111centrumcz
Yes, one advantage with Mach 3 missiles is that the engagement time is very short. And if it is doing evasive maneuvers, it increases the interception difficulty. Suppose a missile flying at Mach 3, decides to jettison the engine during the final approach and fly using the residual kinetic energy, and is able to maintain an average Mach 2 throughout the last 10 kms, and is also indulging in evasive maneuvers, that will be a difficult target.
harishkumar09 8 months ago
@harishkumar09
I have no quarrel with your assesments (and I mostly concur with them) but then again I think we both were talking past each other, not to each other. Yes, faster is IR brighter, (the missile nosecone will also glow if the missile flies fast for any significant time) so the tradeoff is easier to detect target that stays in engagement range for a shorter time, or a less bright target that is in engagement range longer.
52111centrumcz 8 months ago
@52111centrumcz
You are right!
harishkumar09 8 months ago
Music makes me want ta busta move...
16Echo101stID 8 months ago
looks like a good weapon to combat somali pirates
rgb0841 8 months ago
The music sounds like a guy getting beaten up by a 13 foot earthworm. Which is a good thing.
CamelBallZee 9 months ago
sound=shit, nothing on Earth sounds better than a 30mm
0HippyHunter0 9 months ago
hmmmm, wonder how the Dutch Goalkeeper system compares (it doesnt have missiles like this one though)
arutixar 11 months ago
@arutixar from weapons alone (since we don't know it's fire control system and radar accuracy and detection resolution) the kashtan definitely wins by far... since it has 2 30mm gatling cannons compared to just 1 30mm avenger gatling cannon, plus missile mount.
the thing however is that the western NATO naval defense system usually consider CIWS as an absolute last resort weapon only used if EVERYTHING else in the defensive layer (like AEGIS) failed to intercept the threat with their missiles.
IonoTheFanatics 11 months ago
@IonoTheFanatics so while goalkeeper doesn't have a missile mount, the ships in western navies respond with long range, medium range, and short range missiles as well... usually part of the AEGIS in order to intercept the threat, if EVERYTHING else completely fails to intercept it... the CIWS will intercept it as a last resort.
the only difference is that unlike Kashtan they are not put in the same weapon mount, instead the short/medium range missiles usually have their own separate weapon pod.
IonoTheFanatics 11 months ago
@IonoTheFanatics Hmmm that is true, it has two. But the GoalKeeper system is known to be conservative with its ammo because its very accurate (in other words it might not need 2 guns to do the same thing). I doubt the Kashtan can fire its gatling guns independent at 2 different targets.
arutixar 11 months ago
@arutixar it can't, not to the best of my knowledge at least... but theoretically with 2 cannons, it can saturate the missile path with more munitions which is useful if the missile employs last minute evasive pattern like all modern anti ship missiles do.
frankly with more and more supersonic and lately hypersonic missiles even, becoming a new threat to ships the ship's defense are much more focused on the missiles (RAM, and VLS for NATO ships) than the guns.
IonoTheFanatics 11 months ago
@lionsforlyons True, but there are high-supersonic ones as well. Cruise missiles generally are subsonic for range. AShM's, in particular Russian ones in fact have higher range than that of subsonic counterparts.
Tomahawk isnt exactly an AShM. It can be used as one though no doubt, but other than its the Harpoon.
All in all the reason for the high speed tendency is the drastically reduced response time, thus increasing the chances of a successful hit and higher damage.
Buuub08 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
whats the song ?
guano20051 11 months ago
we got the power, biatch
SuperBaraban 11 months ago
Really interesting shows of Russian arms since the CCCP fell. Used to be you only caught the matinee on May day in Red Square. Not so damn much secrecy now I suppose...
deetjay1 1 year ago
Rate of fire: 10,000 rds / min
efreitorss367 1 year ago
I love how the Russians always go all the way with their equipment! Brutall shit!
AvoinTarina 1 year ago
Everyone argues who has the better military weaponry, the U.S. or Russia. The truth of the matter is, they steal technology from one another so often, that most of the weapons produced by either side are hybrids of both countries.
bemo13175 1 year ago 17
@bemo13175 Technology does not matter, always wins Russia
mAxZubov 5 months ago
Oh, sorry, for 1,000 years, Russia will always win
mAxZubov 5 months ago
@mAxZubov Two words: Winter War.
DreadX10 5 months ago
@DreadX10 Winter, Summer, Year of Mars, God in the office - does not matter - Russia will always win
mAxZubov 5 months ago
@DreadX10 Personally, I'd give my life for my country, and all my relatives and friends, so do it.
mAxZubov 5 months ago
@mAxZubov Don't know what you're on about but what I meaned was the attempted russian invasion of finland during WWII, called the Winter War. Russia lost to Finland!
DreadX10 5 months ago
@DreadX10 Rus didn't los.According to peaceful treaty signed in Moscow on 12 March on russian terms. USSR obtained new territories: 1.Karelian Isthmus (finnish border was moved from 18 kms from Leningrad to 150 kms), 2.Part of Laplandia(Old Salla), 3.Petsamo District, 4.Islands in Eastern part of Finnish Bay (Gogland Island), 5. Khanko Peninsula was taken for rent for 30 years. 6. Ladoga Lake (largest in Europe) stopped beeing on finnish-russian border and became entirely internal russian lake.
AlexanderTch 5 months ago
@DreadX10 What's about Winter War in your stupid opinion taken from american stupid films? Learn history moron. On 7 of March 1940 Finnish delegation came to moscow to sign peaceful treaty. It was signed on 12 March in Moscow on Russian terms. Russian army fulfilled all its objectives. Mannerheim line was broken and Finnish Government started to beg for peace. So, learn facts and read books instead of watching stupid TV held by antirussian propagandistic morons.
AlexanderTch 5 months ago 8
@AlexanderTch Russia has never lost to Fin.What about Winter War in your stupid opinion taken from american stupid films? Learn history moron. On 7 of March 1940 Finnish delegation came to moscow to sign peaceful treaty. It was signed on 12 March in Moscow on Russian terms. Russian army fulfilled all its objectives. Mannerheim line was broken and Finnish Government started to beg for peace. So, learn facts and read books instead of watching stupid TV held by antirussian propagandistic morons.
AlexanderTch 5 months ago
@DreadX10 According to peaceful treaty signed in Moscow on 12 March on russian terms. USSR obtained new territories: 1.Karelian Isthmus (finnish border was moved from 18 kms from Leningrad to 150 kms), 2.Part of Laplandia(Old Salla), 3.Petsamo District, 4.Islands in Eastern part of Finnish Bay (Gogland Island), 5. Khanko Peninsula was taken for rent for 30 years. 6. Ladoga Lake (largest in Europe) stopped beeing on finnish-russian border and became entirely internal russian lake.
AlexanderTch 5 months ago
@DreadX10 According to peaceful treaty signed in Moscow on 12 March on russian terms. USSR obtained new territories: 1.Karelian Isthmus (finnish border was moved from 18 kms from Leningrad to 150 kms), 2.Part of Laplandia(Old Salla), 3.Petsamo District, 4.Islands in Eastern part of Finnish Bay (Gogland Island), 5. Khanko Peninsula was taken for rent for 30 years. 6. Ladoga Lake (largest in Europe) stopped beeing on finnish-russian border and became entirely internal russian lake.
AlexanderTch 5 months ago
@bemo13175 The Gathling system is known scinse 19 century and is one of the sandard weapon systems, being used by other countries. US and Russia used this one system, but the ingeneering desisions are quite different. F.e. in US dun is used electrical rotation of the gun, but in russian gun GSh-6-23 is piromeckanical rotation.
dutu74 5 months ago
OH MY, DUAL WIELDING CIWS!
adats01 1 year ago
looks like the top half of a mech from armored core. I love it!
skaaltel 1 year ago
el mejor ciws no hay nada que lo iguale en el mundo
sukoy999 1 year ago
It sure is fun to flex muscles and boast, and argue who's better, but I'm not all too sure either nation ever gets to find out which one has the better guns.
What's the point of all these toys when nuclear deterrence is unavoidably strong these days (enough strategic nuclear weapons in subs to wipe most life off the globe for starters) and M.A.D. doctrine is a strong part of both countries' nuclear strategy.
Ah well, skipping the comments, these videos are cool I guess.
JikuuNeko 1 year ago
found where heavyarms left his guns..
kelenoss 1 year ago
just a copy of VADS and US CIWS...but a bad one
xDuffman3000x 1 year ago
@xDuffman3000x ignorant. but a bad one at that!
joejoe4812 1 year ago
@xDuffman3000x : and i guess it is "bad" just because you say so, correct? Look, it was the Soviets and not the Americans who first developed the CIWS notion: repeat Soviets first, not the U.S.A.
The day any American bomber or fighter comes close to Russian fleets for the attack, or any U.S. anti-shipping missile is fired at them, and the Kashtan fails to stop them, you might have some space to make such claim -a "bad" "copy"-.
vonkaunaz 1 year ago
whats the song ?
kangax 1 year ago
@Airgunhead1234 Your comment raped your own ignorant ass, communism is a UTOPIA(read not viable) and true democracy you have no idea what it is as you only elect new MUPPETS, the true string pullers remain the SAME! Democracy...only for those for who IGNORANCE IS BLISS.
bsod4u2 1 year ago
Chestnut easily knocks down cruise missiles tomogavk
inkvizitr1 1 year ago
The only reason I have removed my comments is that because I do not want to condescend to your level.
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
boooonnnneeerrrr
MADNEXXION 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kunstAlberst "GOD BLESS RUSSIA AND ALL OTHER CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX COUNTRIES!!!"
I think that everybody who wants to pick a fight on religious grounds should be packed up and sent to a large island, with all the weaponry that they want. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant Christians, Sunni and Shia Muslims, Jews, etc.
Then the sane portion of the world can sit back and watch the fireworks, while the problem takes care of itself.
AnonymousDiv0 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst just shut fuck up you russian piece of shit.
ariecbf109 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i thought the goalkeeper was cool. this has them beat!
b1gbird001 1 year ago
why have they put a flame thrower on a ship
racist123 1 year ago 25
@racist123 flame thrower?
if you are referring to the constant flame coming out of the muzzle then it is not from a flame thrower its due to mindl boggling rate of fire of 3000 or so rounds a minute
which resutls in a constant flame
its the constant muzzle flash
Mirpurmad 1 year ago
@racist123 for the fun ! :D
MrAzzman31 11 months ago
@racist123 pirates?
jdswiney 6 months ago
Prick!
stenmicro 1 year ago
W Rossjya !!
what is the song ?! , Russian techno ?!
PS2djX 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
Quick question, why did they put the tunguska missiles on the gun? Would it not have been better to have the gun in one place then have a wire to the missiles which would be on another place?
If something happens (like someone shooting at the thing, or an accident), the whole system is down.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser
Usually Kortik/Kashtan-M is not the only AA system - Kirov class battlecruisers have also S-300 Fort, Kinzhal(naval Tor missiles) and Osa-M.
brocalfur 1 year ago
@brocalfur yes, but it is still strange to place the tunguska on the CIWS. In the US Phalanx + SeaRam there is two seperate launcher so one can continue without the other.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
Kasthan-M dual chain-gun, with multi-missle launcher over the top. effective mutli-range system. Glad to see some new things in Russia.
Direwolf13PS3 1 year ago
P O W E R !!!! RUSSIA !!!!!
MrLGpaul 1 year ago
I wonder why they even let CIW Systems detect targets by themselves, don't the ships have better radars?
Galvanidze 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago 9
@kunstAlberst well in mw2 i did alright XD
stowwyowwy 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst
Gotta love these brainwashed nationalists. Who gives a fuck how good your weapons are, your country is a disgustring, writhing piece of shit on the verge of economic collapse.
Enjoy your poverty,
-Earth
patriotik 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst @kunstAlberst You say that yet Japan beat Russia single-handidily back in the 1900's. Also a war between America and Russia would leave everyone dead, but Russia and America are pretty much allies. there's not much point in pointing the "I'm better than you" finger, as far as Russia's military might, yes with the improving economy and new oil refinery up in Siberia they'll be back in their world power chairs, even the older weaponry shows great longevity.
Direwolf13PS3 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst I suggest you pay attention to the fact that regardless of impact Japan a relatively new industrialized nation, with a brand new no so experienced Navy trounced the Russian Navy with minimal damage. Also the Serbian Genocide (Im pretty sure your talking about Sebrenica) was not committed by the US or Western powers, it was by Bosnian Serb's. However the commander of the group responsible slipped away, but seeing as he had a history of strokes he is most likely dead at this point.
Direwolf13PS3 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst By the way not all Muslims = terrorists that idea alone is quite hilarious, genocide took place, and therefore the UN/NATO jumped in as usual.
Direwolf13PS3 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst What you have just outlined is nationalism. on your part alone. Formal or not Russia and America are allied, as far a forgiveness for "massacre" a quick look back to WWII see's everyone doing the same thing, I.E. Bombing of civilian populous to lower combatants morale. Also the Yugoslavian Ground forces killed about the same number of people, and half of the blame for the NATO civilian casualties falls on Britain who even after being told to stop using cluster bombs, kept using em.
Direwolf13PS3 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst hey kunst, me and my family are Italians, but Orthodoxs, we don't want the rule of Rome on our beliefs... But don´t mess with Italy, or I will kick your butt
wackokicker 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst it will be my pleasure to have a sporting friendly fight with you, but I agree, NATO did absolutely wrong in Serbia. It was nice to see the "stealth" plane parking in a Serbian hill.
wackokicker 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst NATO is an abortion, intended to face "Russian Invasion" to Europe...Europe was never in danger, but it is now, being USA the hidden enemy... look how USA forbids Germany to make its own Air Force, Eurofighter won't work and is a multination project, so it doesn't count. Germany, Italy and Spain must get rid of US bases, they say that are protecting, but they are ocuppying territories.
wackokicker 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst u patch your butt before helping serbia faggot!
kubruk 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst u stupid faggot. u cant even talk like a human u piece of shit. u pretend to be a russian but a fucking poor serbian peasant. now go keep fucking your sister goat..
kubruk 1 year ago
Comment removed
kunstAlberst 1 year ago
@kunstAlberst just shut up fag. dont take it on us if you were raped by someone
kubruk 1 year ago
Anyone know the name of the music?
Bongo2k 2 years ago
Although, im not quite sure any existing CIWS can protect from Russian AShMs. I mean most of them are high supersonic while the rest uses subsonic. supersonic and even hypersonic missiles give the CIWS nearly no time to react. Missiles are detected only like 5-7 miles away, if its at 3Mach speed, you got only like 10 seconds. Phalanx has the missile only in range for 2 seconds. It can deal with one, probably, but no more than that. subsonic missiles are in range for around 10s.
Buuub08 2 years ago 22
@Buuub08,
The US Navy found out in the mis 2000's that Phalanx fails to intercept the Russian ASM's.
The same for SM-2 ship defence system and sea sparrow. Even a Phalanx add-on, the seaRAM is very questionable. That's why the US Navy made a new development called the RM-116 in the hope that it stands a chance to intercept these Russian ASM's. The US is worried about these Russian ASM's. Reaction time lies between 8 to 11 seconds.
ILTUSU 2 years ago
@Buuub08,
Russia couldn't compeed with the US Navy pound for pound and that's why Russia developed these ASM's. It's a cheap way of dealing with a large Navy. They will always get a hit no matter how good defences are. You just fire them in large numbers. The worry the US had that Iran might have them is one of the reasons the US attacked Iraq. The US could use the Iraq border in case of a war with Iran. That way the US Navy ships keep afloat.
ILTUSU 2 years ago
@Buuub08
It doesn't matter if hyper- or subsonic...both are deadly. The Club missiles (SS-N-27 Sizzler) are subsonic but possibly more feared than Oniks or Granit. The flight path is unpredictable (launch will be detected in one direction but the impact is possibly on the other side), it's stealthy, sea-skimming and makes a supersonic sprint near its target.
brocalfur 1 year ago
In a carrier battle group a missle can be spotted 68 miles away
steamingpoopfart 1 year ago
@steamingpoopfart Not really. It depends on a whole range of aspects from what the actual missile is to even stuff like air humidity and time of day.
Technically there is NO WAY you can detect a passive guidance missile that is 5-10m from the water, its behind the LOS of any radar until it gets as close as like 15km. In some cases the missile being hypersonic you have like 20 seconds tops to respond in ideal conditions.
Buuub08 1 year ago
68mi might be for the carrier itself assuming it gets information from supporting ships on the incoming threat.
However that scenario is very unlikely and utterly stupid.
The first targets are the support ships starting from the outer lines of detection/defense. More over, in a real combat situation jammers go in first to disrupt communications and you never fire 1 missile per ship, more like 5 out of which no more than 2 are expected to make it all the way.
That the reality not TV propaganda.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@Buuub08 I wondered why US doesn't make any supersonic antiship missiles? the speed of the Russian antiship missiles makes it so effective and superior than US ones.
FeelFree3 1 year ago
@FeelFree3 After I analyse that. I have the most likely answer. US doesn't have the technology to make supersonic antiship missiles.
FeelFree3 1 year ago
@FeelFree3 Well, Russians do have the edge in missile and rocket tech. Ever wondered why its Russian RD-180 engines (license built) which carry US satellites into space?
While the technology is certainly there, supersonic and hypersonic missiles come with their own set of problems. The US simply doesnt have the experience with them yet. Missiles (in general) isnt the only area where Russians have the edge atm. You can also add cavitation, some aspects of aviation, APS and others.
Buuub08 1 year ago
@FeelFree3 U.S. doesn't lack the technology but it has a different military doctrine than Russia in many regards. U.S. missiles like Harpoon and Tomahawk while slower have a superb accuracy. Russian missiles though faster and bigger but I have to wonder if they're so quick that they don't have enough time to course correct as needed. They're probably accurate enough to hit a several hundred meter warship but how battle tested are their missiles? Also, U.S. just tested laser CIWS system.
Yakko77 1 year ago
@Yakko77 umm. russian missiles can knock out other missiles and do it better than any US counterpart. what makes you think that hitting a huge aircraft carrier would be a problem?
parapobabam 11 months ago
@parapobabam Tested and proven when? The U.S. defense budget, even with all the cuts Obama wants to impose on it to fund his social welfare utopia is still above the next 5 if not 10 nations combined and yet you assume Russian superiority just because.. what? Russia stomped tiny Georgia or it use of WWII tactics against Chechnya in its use of mass artillery to take out towns with a few insurgents? Please, enlighten me on Russia's modern military prowess and it's PROVEN capability.
Yakko77 11 months ago
@Buuub08 Не не все будет нормально )
MaksimovLugansk 9 months ago
The range is determined by the manufacturer. Its typically around 4000m. CIWS is basically a visual range defense system. US Phalanx CIWS has no missiles. The missiles are a separate system and not suitable for all incoming missile threads, they are more of a AA system, just as on the Russian one. I see nothing wrong with putting 2 systems (3 systems actually since there are 2 guns) on 1 turret. This is easier and more compact. Older CIWS simply had no missiles to combine them with, thats all.
Buuub08 2 years ago
The Navy has been focusing more on missiles for close defense over the past decade or so, so don't mistake the lack of guns to be a sign of weak defenses. Phalanx, RAM, and ESSM provide a very effective layered defense.
I would like to see a CIWS system combining either the 25mm GAU-12/U with RIM-116 missiles, replacing both the standalone Phalanx gun and RAM launcher but there are other priorities for our military these days.
Sooner or later we are going to have some laser based CIWS too.
ReconTeam111 2 years ago
Yep. We are rowing in the same direction. All i said is that Phalanx back in the days had no missiles to combine it with. Kashatan is a much younger and advanced system having 2 guns and 2 missile platforms on a single turret. It saves up space. Im sure others will make something similar soon enough.
As for lasers... dunno, they have downsides which are unacceptable. Maybe in some 50+ years. We'll see, we'll see.
Buuub08 2 years ago
... and METALSTORM.
rotumanpride 2 years ago
It operates fast. Its the missile reload that you see not the gun pop-up. Guns are out and scanning 24/7. In addition this CIWS has 8 missiles which reload. US CIWS has no missiles and has only 1 gun. 2 guns give twice the rate of fire and twice the effectiveness.
CIWS has no pre-set range and there is no such thing for them as "long range". Their limit (the limit of 30mm guns) is around 4000m. Thats where they all operate. Missiles are for longer range.
Buuub08 2 years ago
In fact this is the best CIWS around. Just as many other Russian weapons which surpass the counterparts by even decades. Unfortunately our public prefers to hear that USA is the best in everything. Yet by just comparing specifications or weapons, Russians beat USA in almost everything from guns to ICBMs. To many Russian developments USA is/was decades from even coming close. Ground vehicle APS is a good example. They have fielded APS for almost THIRTY years, we are still in prototype phase.
Buuub08 2 years ago
Where do you hear all of this nonsense? Everything from guns to ICBMs? Russian tech has it days, but they are not decades ahead of us in any area, and we are ahead of them in many ways.
Phalanx was superior in accuracy and tracking to the Russian AK-630 CIWS system. Kashtan here is certainly an improvement and brings much more firepower. However the USN now has the RIM-116 RAM and RIM-162 ESSM for close defense.
ReconTeam111 2 years ago
@Buuub08
The Russian Palash/Palma is even better
brocalfur 1 year ago
no its operational, just its mobile too
bargior 2 years ago
Serious defense system! Anyone have anything comparable?
Vikingdescendent 2 years ago