| 作者 |
 標題  |
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
 Posted - 10/18/2010 : 10:47:06
|
Correct. And also ship mounted CIWS usually put on locations that give it direct line of sight into the horizon in order to detect and pick up low flying aircraft or sea skimming anti-ship missile, and give the CIWS at least 180-270 degree of coverage so if the ship has 2 or more CIWS, they could overlap their coverage area and give each other mutual support. When you put the CIWS on land, you most certain won't get line of sight to horizon due to buildings and structures in the area blocking the sight.
The C-RAM is only good for mortars and rockets---when tie in with an artillery radar in the area. But in the same time, it can't engage incoming enemy aircraft or land attack cruise missile. I mean, you don't want to put a no fly zone above/around each operational C-RAM sites that would forbid any friendly aircraft enter those zones and make your flight maps looks like Swiss cheeses---full of holes.
Last, Mk 16 CIWS/R2D2 doesn't have IFF ability. It needs other radar systems to provide that important IFF info. If put CIWS on land and without tie it into any other air defense radar systems, the CIWS will shoot any incoming, doesn't care if friend or foe.....
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/53796
quote:
On February 25, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the Phalanx-equipped USS "Jarrett" was a few miles from the USS "Missouri" and the British destroyer HMS "Gloucester". A Sea Dart missile launched from "Gloucester" destroyed an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the 'Seersucker'), at which "Missouri" also fired its SRBOC chaff. The Phalanx system on "Jarrett", operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon "Missouri"'s chaff and fired a burst of rounds. From this burst, four rounds hit "Missouri" which was two to three miles (about 5 km) from "Jarrett" at the time. There were no injuries. [ [http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm Tab-H Friendly-fire Incidents] ] Incidentally, this is the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile, during combat at sea.
Also check here, top of page 179.
http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=erVzmflT2MIC&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false |
Edited by - Bryan C on 10/18/2010 11:02:19 |
 |
|
|
小毛
我是老鳥
Taiwan
9909 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 15:24:32
|
| 76mm快砲作為據點防空不知道大家推不推? |
|
|
|
rockitten
我是老鳥
Australia
8191 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 16:11:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by 小毛
76mm快砲作為據點防空不知道大家推不推?
for that kind of size and fore control requirement, I prefer a land base SM-1.......
小貓不會作模型，小貓只愛玩模型；看似小貓玩模型，其實模型玩小貓：
A B 補土白膠條，樹脂改套蝕刻片；凹線凸線凹凸線，乾磨水磨銼刀磨；
水性油性消光漆，乾掃手掃噴槍掃；模型一盒三百幾，零件一堆三千幾；
多買多作進步多，買了不作口水多；花錢耗時傷精神，小貓是隻敗家喵。 |
|
|
|
SK2
路人甲乙丙
2341 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 16:44:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by rockitten
quote:
Originally posted by 小毛
76mm快砲作為據點防空不知道大家推不推?
for that kind of size and fore control requirement, I prefer a land base SM-1.......
Why not a land-based SM-2/3, together with SPY-1 Radar?
It will look impressive!
======================
Only champagne produced in Champagne can be called as champagne. Non-Champagne champagnes aren't real champagnes. |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 16:47:01
|
| I would rather going for the laser CIWS now being tested on US Navy ship(s), which if necessary, can be used as clearing unexploded bombs or bomblets on/near the runways, taxiways, and tarmac.... |
Edited by - Bryan C on 10/18/2010 16:48:04 |
|
|
|
SleeplessPrometheus
路人甲乙丙
3126 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 17:29:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by 小毛
76mm快砲作為據點防空不知道大家推不推?
拿76快炮來，這不只是據點防空，是已經到了據點防衛的程度了.....
|
|
|
|
ryan2181
路人甲乙丙
Taiwan
2279 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 17:43:29
|
義大利佬不是就搞出了76快砲的防砲車
========================
筆書照肝膽 狂俠亦溫文
"黑色槍騎兵聽令:前方的都是敵人"
Secretary General of IMFS(International Military Fans Society)
銀河系的歷史又翻過了一頁....
|
|
|
|
小毛
我是老鳥
Taiwan
9909 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 18:22:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by SleeplessPrometheus
quote:
Originally posted by 小毛
76mm快砲作為據點防空不知道大家推不推?
拿76快炮來，這不只是據點防空，是已經到了據點防衛的程度了.....
本來就是打算用來打十公里外的直升機，巡弋飛彈等等目標阿，當然有船艦或是人車逼近時也很好用。不過剛剛去查資料，好像57mm快砲也很優... |
|
|
|
小毛
我是老鳥
Taiwan
9909 Posts |
|
|
max03max
我是菜鳥
Taiwan
316 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 19:53:49
|
千禧年也有卡車自走？....
 |
|
|
|
LUMBER
我是老鳥
Taiwan
8485 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 21:47:03
|
防空車....價錢啊.....
這些車只怕不便宜.....
真有心要搞,台灣能有多少心? |
|
|
|
SleeplessPrometheus
路人甲乙丙
3126 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2010 : 22:28:24
|
有機會買到這等新貨好物大概會先被海軍要走吧?
然後海軍換下來的在給防炮........... |
Edited by - SleeplessPrometheus on 10/18/2010 22:28:45 |
|
|
|
HOTARU
路人甲乙丙
3579 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 03:45:45
|
第二張照片的龍式其實也只是第一張照片裡的現代版,取消了獨立的搜索雷達,並把照明雷達移往前面而已.
我很喜歡龍式的設計,這砲塔加上新開發的76mm導引對空炮彈,有潛力搞成防空/戰防/自走砲三種用途合一的系統.
陸軍可能不適合這樣搞通用,但對小單位的海陸來說拿來汰換M41輕戰車/榭樹飛彈車/M109A2自走砲三種裝備正好. |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 08:18:32
|
| But most likely the Marines would want 4 or 8 Stingers added to the side of the gun, plus a coax 7.62mm.... |
|
|
|
SleeplessPrometheus
路人甲乙丙
3126 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 09:59:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by HOTARU
第二張照片的龍式其實也只是第一張照片裡的現代版,取消了獨立的搜索雷達,並把照明雷達移往前面而已.
我很喜歡龍式的設計,這砲塔加上新開發的76mm導引對空炮彈,有潛力搞成防空/戰防/自走砲三種用途合一的系統.
陸軍可能不適合這樣搞通用,但對小單位的海陸來說拿來汰換M41輕戰車/榭樹飛彈車/M109A2自走砲三種裝備正好.
要取代自走炮可能不行，通常的76炮的炮彈裝藥才0.75kg而已，
裝船上因為空間大載量大所以當岸轟用還可以用高落彈數取代。
但是要是上陸了，那當自走炮用的話彈頭威力不夠，又不能用高射數取代，因為車載不了那多炮彈，補給會變成惡夢。
用這個去當自走炮的話，迫炮的表現都會比它好，更不要說是一般的榴炮。
|
|
|
|
dasha
版主
41532 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 11:12:21
|
瑞典在1980年代還搞了新的120mm等級岸炮,雖然主要是岸防打船打車用的,不過這種等級的炮,防空也還很有潛力.問題只是這年頭高射速防空炮是冷門裝備,除了幾個壟斷市場的廠以外,別人投入研發沒甚前景......
76mm的整個機構對裝甲車太大,固定陣地對地又嫌威力小......
吉屋出售
台北縣板橋市大觀路一二樓公寓,接近國小至大學各級學校及公車總站,離捷運及板橋車站不遠.
詳情請洽0931043559田小姐 |
|
|
|
冗丙
版主
Taiwan
15790 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 11:34:02
|
空爆大好??
有TV信管+讀秒的引信加持說~
嘴炮衛漢統~網路復神州~ |
|
|
|
MACOS8
路人甲乙丙
3316 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 12:29:20
|
防砲的話小弟的意見只有兩點(不包括純飛彈):
1. 天兵該買的該升級的趕快買改快升，雷達該升級的趕快升，小砲都撐了這麼久了趕快通通除役。
庫存空射麻雀那麼多是怎麼樣? 又不是不能改通用..
2. 不買天兵買捷羚? 可以呀，只要能提供一樣的作戰距離跟效益就可以。不行的話就乖乖雙重部屬。某些立委請趕快閉上嘴巴..有些東西拖越久要花的錢越多..
至於陸軍的部分:
該建的建案一堆: 小砲、50槍、欉樹飛彈、M42汰換案，另外再加肩射防空飛彈.... (骨董)甚麼都有，(新裝備)甚麼都沒有
已經有的新裝備不是數量不夠(復仇者)，就是機動性不足(DMS)
勤儉建軍是吧..唉.... |
Edited by - MACOS8 on 10/19/2010 13:05:32 |
|
|
|
Bryan C
路人甲乙丙
USA
1455 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 13:49:17
|
復仇者 pretty much are all disable now, due to soldiers don't follow operational procedures---didn't shutdown the 復仇者 system before start the HUMVEE's engine, and burnt out the fuses on the 復仇者.....
Stinger DMS is okay for now, but all those Stinger rounds, as well as those in 復仇者 systems need to be rebuilt---since they are 10+ years old.
欉樹飛彈, CSIST upgraded the M48's FLIR on ROCMC, maybe ROC Army will follow suit later on.
天兵, not much going on with the radar. 35mm guns has a new version, but you have to know that PLA has the same system producing, so it might be wise to retire 天兵 all together. Besides, the Sparrow missiles are about 20 years.....
捷羚, ROCAF is waiting for newer version of the radar that can control 16 firing units, including TC-2....
|
|
|
|
小毛
我是老鳥
Taiwan
9909 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 14:03:09
|
為何AAG要強調對地能力?對地能力是賺到的吧，有的話就加減用，防空才是本行吧。
我比較好奇的是，這些AAG的雷達有辦法抓到RCS 乒乓球大小的目標嗎?或是更小的...
例外如果搜索雷達都隨車，那單位成本就降不下來。搜索雷達如果不隨車，只有射控雷達隨車，應該也可以降低很多成本吧。 |
Edited by - 小毛 on 10/19/2010 14:06:47 |
|
|
|
MACOS8
路人甲乙丙
3316 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 14:28:05
|
天兵系統: 小弟不介意對岸也用同樣的快砲，只要能在電子防護上區分出來, 35砲一樣可以用的很好..因此重點是在他的雷達系統上, 能更新就應該趕快更新..更新完一樣是一尾活龍..至於他的飛彈彈庫裡有一堆大概十年出頭的, 飛機用不到就該趕快改改給地面用。這套系統算是防砲最穩定的一套系統，除非有更好的選擇，不然繼續使用會比較好。
至於捷羚系統? 先看看他到底能不能自動導引20砲吧..能有效引導20砲加上陸劍一後再談把天兵廢掉。另外20砲的射程偏短，除非日後採TC-2/TC-1/20mm的模式，不然還差一圈。另外不知道蜂眼量產又是不是要再過五個年頭以上..陸劍一這套系統正式成軍服役就不知道真的花了多少時間。 |
|
|
|
MACOS8
路人甲乙丙
3316 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 14:30:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by 小毛
為何AAG要強調對地能力?對地能力是賺到的吧，有的話就加減用，防空才是本行吧。
我比較好奇的是，這些AAG的雷達有辦法抓到RCS 乒乓球大小的目標嗎?或是更小的...
例外如果搜索雷達都隨車，那單位成本就降不下來。搜索雷達如果不隨車，只有射控雷達隨車，應該也可以降低很多成本吧。
沒有搜索，只有射控隨車就比較不能單車作戰(還是有辦法)，行進間作戰能力也比較差。不過這跟射控雷達也分開的版本比還是比較好的 |
|
|
|
gera
路人甲乙丙
5450 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 15:04:09
|
空軍有編列預算升級35快砲.雖然不瞭解升級項目為何,但合理推測是升級為GDF-006.
以目前新編的捷羚/T82混砲連來看.空軍應該會採天兵(35快砲+麻雀)/捷羚(陸劍一+T82)混編的方式來防護機場,形成彈彈砲砲防衛圈.
天兵系統的雷達,並沒有傳出什麼缺點,不太瞭解為何要盡快更新?
反倒是半主動雷達導引的麻雀需要照明雷達.如果能自研更換為陸劍二,會有更好的接戰能力.
至於空軍向海軍借了方陣裝在高山雷達陣地旁,已經有多家雜誌提過.
|
|
|
|
dasha
版主
41532 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 15:46:24
|
CIWS的雷達面對的是反艦飛彈,這玩意正面衝過來時RCS是蠻小的,因此系統主要靠都普勒效應來抓目標,這種設計你可以抓RCS非常小但以高速衝過來的目標,不要說乒乓球,就算昆蟲大小,只要速度好幾百公里正面衝入,就有可能抓到.不過目標如果是從側面飛過,沒有朝你這邊過來的向量,那就算一座山飛過,也不會有反應......
如果要防禦的東西近似點目標,比方船或雷達站,這不是問題.可是如果是機場或基地,那就要當心跑道兩頭的CIWS,不會對跑道上的傢伙開火,因為不是朝CIWS的方向衝過來......
有射控雷達而沒有搜索雷達的機動防空系統範例,就是ZSU-23-4,射控可以當搜索用,但是效率就不佳.
吉屋出售
台北縣板橋市大觀路一二樓公寓,接近國小至大學各級學校及公車總站,離捷運及板橋車站不遠.
詳情請洽0931043559田小姐 |
|
|
|
HOTARU
路人甲乙丙
3579 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2010 : 16:10:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by SleeplessPrometheus
要取代自走炮可能不行，通常的76炮的炮彈裝藥才0.75kg而已，
裝船上因為空間大載量大所以當岸轟用還可以用高落彈數取代。
但是要是上陸了，那當自走炮用的話彈頭威力不夠，又不能用高射數取代，因為車載不了那多炮彈，補給會變成惡夢。
用這個去當自走炮的話，迫炮的表現都會比它好，更不要說是一般的榴炮。
畢竟海陸的M109A2就那麼點,我的想法也只是兼差,讓防空與戰防單位必要時可以幫幫忙火力支援,有LVT5的短管105榴砲的威力就夠了,龍式的炮塔搞得很大除了整個機構小不下來以外,也讓裝彈數不至於太低. |
|
|
|
標題 |
|
台灣野戰防空系統評析
Topic Locked
