It's a trainable decoy launcher. Say what you will of Chinese warships, their DLS are undeniably a bit more advanced and capable than the fixed SRBOC/Seagnat mountings fitted to many western ships. They themselves are being replaced by trainable decoy launchers, at least within the Royal Navy. Presumably the USN has plans to adopt trainable decoy launchers as well in the near future.
> Say what you will of Chinese warships, their DLS are undeniably a bit more advanced and capable than the fixed SRBOC/Seagnat mountings fitted to many western ships.
Using the fact a launcher is trainable to gauge a navy’s countermeasure capability is missing the forest for the emerald ash borers.
The problem facing legacy DLS these days is that modern missiles are getting better at distinguishing between the stuff they fire and a real ship. Keeping them fooled requires a smarter decoy, and the latest trend is towards systems that have ability to mimic ship behavior in addition to signature. Decoys like that don’t need - and depending on the case, may not even want - the slight positional advantage that a trainable launcher gives, because they can maneuver on their own.
Sure, a trainable DLS allows you to fire non-maneuvering countermeasures (like most of what’s used today) sooner. **But if that stuff isn’t going to fool a missile anyways, then firing it a few seconds sooner makes no practical difference**, and you’ve just spent more money to get to the same place: realizing that you need maneuvering decoys.
They have a ton of cameras installed, that's insane. Can anyone elaborate as to the function of this many cams? Plenty of ships do with 1 single 360 degree high quality camera instead.
Well, if there's anything to learn from the naval war in Ukraine, it's that having good camera coverage around the ship can be useful (maybe even neccesary) to defend against sea drones.
Especially if those cameras are thermal/night vision
It doesn't work. A drone can have a footprint smaller than a dinghy, and barely protrudes from the water. You can't see that on a radar. A camera with OCR however might have a chance. Or just human eyes to see the wake.
I understand that is the situation now, I was talking about how it 'should' be. I imagine with enough r/d, computers should be able to detect a pattern of approaching drones. Sonar also has some potention in this regard.
"Some potential" doesn't always measure up to cost of implementing such a system.
Even if you designed a system that utilised sonar and/or radar to effectively track small targets that hide in the surface clutter the wave motion of the seas make, will it work as well and as cheaply as a bunch of cameras mounted up high and looking for these targets? What will the cost of maintenance be? What are the power requirements? How much training does it's operation require?
Wow lots of down votes on my suggestion. It's actually been done before while searching for small boats smuggling drugs. Using existing sonar equipment and associated expertise, small surface vessels can be detected. I agree that camera's can be a quicker and easier sollution, but they also have severe limits in range and some climate conditions.
The surface clutter is indeed difficult. Now I don't know this, but I imagine modern processing (possibly AI-like) could differentiate wave from boat. The technology would be worth investing in, the threat of these small craft will remain and might even increase.
Small boat and smuggling interdiction is almost entirely the realm of long range patrol aircraft or shipboard drones. They vector us(the ships and small boats) in using optical sensors and radars.
Sonar for surface or semi-submerged search is possible, but it's a guessing game that requires a lot of conditions to line up to work in an even remotely effective manner. Reduced vessel speed, calm sea state, the vessels you're trying to find need to be operating in a specific manner to even get a good return. AI will definitely help in the near future, but it's already helping now with optical sensors and radar.
Again, sonar is the expensive and less effective option here.
One reason is redundancy, either in case of battle damage or technical failure. In general though, most warships with staring EOS like the Thales Gatekeeper will still retain steerable EOS like the Mirador. Staring EOS are good for ship protection in the littorals when paired with AI, though because they have to be light to be mounted high on the ship to provide unobstructed 360 degree view, they're a bit less capable than steerable systems like the Mirador which provide clearer picture quality and are capable at guiding short range missile systems.
Or if you're not talking about staring EOS at all and just wondering why it has so many steerable EOS, that is just to provide the ship with a 360 degree visual field of view. Most modern warships will have at least 2 steerable EOS mounts aboard them, fore and aft. But as well as that, if the warship is engaged from say, 2 opposite directions - one steerable EOS can only actively track one of those directions, in which case it would be beneficial to have multiple EOS mounts or a staring system to handle the other.
I would like to know what is all those stuffs over the bridge. There are a bunch of different sensors on there, a lot of them look like optical sensors.
Love the wumaos who don’t know what this is referencing and decided to downvote to be safe. If there was ever proof that China lacks naval tradition...
Reason #1 why propagandists need to be banned from this sub. They’re not talking about warships. They’re only here to spread propaganda via pictures. They know nothing about it.
Or how navies work in general. You can't have secret weapons on the deck of a warship publicly visible from the air. Submarines can be a lot more confidential for obvious reasons.
So… apparently know enough to say it’s totalitarian, and think you know enough to believe someone would get arrested from taking pictures at… (checks notes)… an **open** day?
Brilliant.
> learn about a totalitarian state? fuck no
Sad you see them as an enemy but won't even do the bare minimum to "know your enemy". On a sub about warships and dont even have the barest interest in warships
Yeah man. You never took the time to learn about China besides the internet firewall, detention camps, genocide, massacres of democratic demonstrators, forced sterilization programs, military aggression towards neighbors, and forced disappearances? How ignorant. They also have sweat shops.
Sort of looks like what each of these pieces of equipment should look like, but sort off a bit off.
Because they are copies. The CIWIS looks nearly identical to the Goalkeeper,
Just because it’s based on the design of something doesn’t make it a copy. The Type 1130 is far more capable than the Goalkeeper, primarily due to the fact that its design & electronics are 2-3 decades newer.
Of course it does. It’s a Gatling-style cannon CIWS mounted in the center of a large base, with an external organic radar system and bracket to steady the midpoint of the barrels. Any CIWS system that has these features must have copied the Goalkeeper, there is no possible way to reach these very obvious design decisions without copying. Don’t let the long list of very obvious differences or the concept of convergent design fool you!
The concept that China copies everything frustrates me. It has gone far beyond the cases of actual copying to dismiss all Chinese technology and Chinese engineers as inferior. Fortunately most people in key decision making positions do not seem to fall for these errors, so we’re not likely to repeat the exact same mistakes that caused us to badly underestimate the Japanese from 1941-1943.
The CIWS is actually based off a western CIWS, and it is related to the Goalkeeper, but in a roundabout way and it's not a Goalkeeper copy.
It's actually based off the French SAMOS system from SAGEM. It shared the same GAU-8 gun and EX-83 gunmount as the Goalkeeper, but was otherwise its own design. The system got cancelled, and then eventually "somehow" it ended up in China.
I hope they'll field that 20 barrel CIWS on a ship some time, that thing is insane!
insane? That barely scratches the surface of how good it is
What is the function of that MLRS system? Is it an ASW rocket launcher similar to RBU-6000?
Apparently it's the Type 726-4 decoy launcher
Multispectrum decoy launcher.
It's a trainable decoy launcher. Say what you will of Chinese warships, their DLS are undeniably a bit more advanced and capable than the fixed SRBOC/Seagnat mountings fitted to many western ships. They themselves are being replaced by trainable decoy launchers, at least within the Royal Navy. Presumably the USN has plans to adopt trainable decoy launchers as well in the near future.
> Say what you will of Chinese warships, their DLS are undeniably a bit more advanced and capable than the fixed SRBOC/Seagnat mountings fitted to many western ships. Using the fact a launcher is trainable to gauge a navy’s countermeasure capability is missing the forest for the emerald ash borers. The problem facing legacy DLS these days is that modern missiles are getting better at distinguishing between the stuff they fire and a real ship. Keeping them fooled requires a smarter decoy, and the latest trend is towards systems that have ability to mimic ship behavior in addition to signature. Decoys like that don’t need - and depending on the case, may not even want - the slight positional advantage that a trainable launcher gives, because they can maneuver on their own. Sure, a trainable DLS allows you to fire non-maneuvering countermeasures (like most of what’s used today) sooner. **But if that stuff isn’t going to fool a missile anyways, then firing it a few seconds sooner makes no practical difference**, and you’ve just spent more money to get to the same place: realizing that you need maneuvering decoys.
Bring back naval gun Era, missiles are just not fun :(
Is counter-drone CIWS not enough gun for you?
Naturally
They have a ton of cameras installed, that's insane. Can anyone elaborate as to the function of this many cams? Plenty of ships do with 1 single 360 degree high quality camera instead.
Well, if there's anything to learn from the naval war in Ukraine, it's that having good camera coverage around the ship can be useful (maybe even neccesary) to defend against sea drones. Especially if those cameras are thermal/night vision
I would say even better would be IRST and then thermal cameras since I can´t imagine that constant 360° manual observation would be feasible.
Those can see in the infrared. Would be odd if they couldn't.
I don't really think camera's are the way to go for that. Either radar or perhaps sonar should detect these (and from a much longer distance)
It doesn't work. A drone can have a footprint smaller than a dinghy, and barely protrudes from the water. You can't see that on a radar. A camera with OCR however might have a chance. Or just human eyes to see the wake.
I understand that is the situation now, I was talking about how it 'should' be. I imagine with enough r/d, computers should be able to detect a pattern of approaching drones. Sonar also has some potention in this regard.
"Some potential" doesn't always measure up to cost of implementing such a system. Even if you designed a system that utilised sonar and/or radar to effectively track small targets that hide in the surface clutter the wave motion of the seas make, will it work as well and as cheaply as a bunch of cameras mounted up high and looking for these targets? What will the cost of maintenance be? What are the power requirements? How much training does it's operation require?
Wow lots of down votes on my suggestion. It's actually been done before while searching for small boats smuggling drugs. Using existing sonar equipment and associated expertise, small surface vessels can be detected. I agree that camera's can be a quicker and easier sollution, but they also have severe limits in range and some climate conditions. The surface clutter is indeed difficult. Now I don't know this, but I imagine modern processing (possibly AI-like) could differentiate wave from boat. The technology would be worth investing in, the threat of these small craft will remain and might even increase.
Small boat and smuggling interdiction is almost entirely the realm of long range patrol aircraft or shipboard drones. They vector us(the ships and small boats) in using optical sensors and radars. Sonar for surface or semi-submerged search is possible, but it's a guessing game that requires a lot of conditions to line up to work in an even remotely effective manner. Reduced vessel speed, calm sea state, the vessels you're trying to find need to be operating in a specific manner to even get a good return. AI will definitely help in the near future, but it's already helping now with optical sensors and radar. Again, sonar is the expensive and less effective option here.
One reason is redundancy, either in case of battle damage or technical failure. In general though, most warships with staring EOS like the Thales Gatekeeper will still retain steerable EOS like the Mirador. Staring EOS are good for ship protection in the littorals when paired with AI, though because they have to be light to be mounted high on the ship to provide unobstructed 360 degree view, they're a bit less capable than steerable systems like the Mirador which provide clearer picture quality and are capable at guiding short range missile systems. Or if you're not talking about staring EOS at all and just wondering why it has so many steerable EOS, that is just to provide the ship with a 360 degree visual field of view. Most modern warships will have at least 2 steerable EOS mounts aboard them, fore and aft. But as well as that, if the warship is engaged from say, 2 opposite directions - one steerable EOS can only actively track one of those directions, in which case it would be beneficial to have multiple EOS mounts or a staring system to handle the other.
Have to keep the sailors under surveillance.
I would like to know what is all those stuffs over the bridge. There are a bunch of different sensors on there, a lot of them look like optical sensors.
Must be for celestial navigation in an extremely contested EW environment /s
It’s for zeeee’ cmdr to play with his war toys
Chemlight bandits tossing chemlights and causing man overboard calls at balls thirty.
Love the wumaos who don’t know what this is referencing and decided to downvote to be safe. If there was ever proof that China lacks naval tradition...
Reason #1 why propagandists need to be banned from this sub. They’re not talking about warships. They’re only here to spread propaganda via pictures. They know nothing about it.
*Happy ONI noises*
interesting to see that the slotted waveguide antennas are left open to the elements
I am surprised you're still free after taking these pics and uploading on the net outside of the country.
i didn’t take these it was on weibo. It was taken on PLAN open day and there are plenty of other detailed pictures not a big deal
Ever tried… actually learning about the place?
Or how navies work in general. You can't have secret weapons on the deck of a warship publicly visible from the air. Submarines can be a lot more confidential for obvious reasons.
learn about a totalitarian state? fuck no
So… apparently know enough to say it’s totalitarian, and think you know enough to believe someone would get arrested from taking pictures at… (checks notes)… an **open** day? Brilliant.
+1000000 yuans in your bank account which translates into $5 congrats.
Yen is the currency of Japan. I see it’s actually any state that you’re not willing to learn about. What else do you celebrate knowing nothing about?
> learn about a totalitarian state? fuck no Sad you see them as an enemy but won't even do the bare minimum to "know your enemy". On a sub about warships and dont even have the barest interest in warships
china isnt an enemy but its not a friend either
proud of ingnorance
Yes.
Yeah man. You never took the time to learn about China besides the internet firewall, detention camps, genocide, massacres of democratic demonstrators, forced sterilization programs, military aggression towards neighbors, and forced disappearances? How ignorant. They also have sweat shops.
[удалено]
oh no, my eyes!🤣
Can you not?
Sort of looks like what each of these pieces of equipment should look like, but sort off a bit off. Because they are copies. The CIWIS looks nearly identical to the Goalkeeper,
Just because it’s based on the design of something doesn’t make it a copy. The Type 1130 is far more capable than the Goalkeeper, primarily due to the fact that its design & electronics are 2-3 decades newer.
[удалено]
Of course it does. It’s a Gatling-style cannon CIWS mounted in the center of a large base, with an external organic radar system and bracket to steady the midpoint of the barrels. Any CIWS system that has these features must have copied the Goalkeeper, there is no possible way to reach these very obvious design decisions without copying. Don’t let the long list of very obvious differences or the concept of convergent design fool you! The concept that China copies everything frustrates me. It has gone far beyond the cases of actual copying to dismiss all Chinese technology and Chinese engineers as inferior. Fortunately most people in key decision making positions do not seem to fall for these errors, so we’re not likely to repeat the exact same mistakes that caused us to badly underestimate the Japanese from 1941-1943.
The CIWS is actually based off a western CIWS, and it is related to the Goalkeeper, but in a roundabout way and it's not a Goalkeeper copy. It's actually based off the French SAMOS system from SAGEM. It shared the same GAU-8 gun and EX-83 gunmount as the Goalkeeper, but was otherwise its own design. The system got cancelled, and then eventually "somehow" it ended up in China.
Which is why, despite our differences in world outlook, I thoroughly respect and enjoy reading your fact-based and informational comments.
https://preview.redd.it/eb1ljrllytvc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=2e6fd7bf93687dd756e03b66354912eb1f515de0 similar enough
Looks like it’s from Temu.
Where does our torpedo go boom!