2 ms·

>Their CIWS etc are pretty good Source please?

throwaway2037 5y ago
Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. However, I feel that CIWS is mostly defensive security theatre. How often are do they actually work in the real world? The number of attacks on vessels carrying CIWS are so small. As a result, CIWS hardly get any real world practice. Events would be studied by military and manuf., then software updates made. As a counterpoint: Think how many cruise missiles have been fired in the last 50 years -- lots(!). There are plenty of case studies for military and manuf. to improve software. (I assume this is also how anti-missile systems are improved, like the US Patriot system.) FYI about this ship (Moskva): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva Says CIWS system is: AK-360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 See section "Service history" for some *highly* speculative writing!
- yread 5y ago
  This destroyer destroyed a few missiles fired on it and it has CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off_the_coast_of_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off...
  - throwaway2037 5y ago
    Nice reference. Your example is more about anti-missile missiles. I was talking more about the machine gun plus radar setup. I find it hard to believe these work very well in combat situations.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. Why not? We are allowed to ask for the sources to claims that are not obvious or easily verifiable, like the ones regarding weapons systems of a secretive country.
  - sharpneli 5y ago
    The sources posted are pretty much the only we even can have. Naturally for these kind of weapons systems we essentially only have the public information, that includes western weapons systems. And all of them naturally boast that they can defend against well, everything. Only when something is actually tested in the field we can see how well it works. Hence Russians have an incentive to deny that it was due to weakness of their CIWS. Or, perhaps more probably, an incentive to say to Putin that they didn't corrupt all the maintenance money and it was just an accident.

throwaway2037 5y ago

Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. However, I feel that CIWS is mostly defensive security theatre. How often are do they actually work in the real world? The number of attacks on vessels carrying CIWS are so small. As a result, CIWS hardly get any real world practice. Events would be studied by military and manuf., then software updates made. As a counterpoint: Think how many cruise missiles have been fired in the last 50 years -- lots(!). There are plenty of case studies for military and manuf. to improve software. (I assume this is also how anti-missile systems are improved, like the US Patriot system.) FYI about this ship (Moskva): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Moskva Says CIWS system is: AK-360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630 See section "Service history" for some *highly* speculative writing!

yread 5y ago
This destroyer destroyed a few missiles fired on it and it has CIWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off_the_coast_of_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mason_(DDG-87)#Attacks_off...
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  Nice reference. Your example is more about anti-missile missiles. I was talking more about the machine gun plus radar setup. I find it hard to believe these work very well in combat situations.
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>Normally, I don't like this kind of "source please" reply. Why not? We are allowed to ask for the sources to claims that are not obvious or easily verifiable, like the ones regarding weapons systems of a secretive country.
- sharpneli 5y ago
  The sources posted are pretty much the only we even can have. Naturally for these kind of weapons systems we essentially only have the public information, that includes western weapons systems. And all of them naturally boast that they can defend against well, everything. Only when something is actually tested in the field we can see how well it works. Hence Russians have an incentive to deny that it was due to weakness of their CIWS. Or, perhaps more probably, an incentive to say to Putin that they didn't corrupt all the maintenance money and it was just an accident.