This is one of my favorite naval guns. It just has such a raw look about it. The soviets sure knew how to set themselves apart from everyone else with their designs.
The infamous soviet apocalypse tank turret in red alert series is designed after this gun irl. The irl version is larger in caliber and a much faster fire rate however.
MrBarlion That was sort of the mindset of the Japanese going into WWII. It was the naval combat dogma from the previous war. Meanwhile the US was already equipping warships with radar guided dual use guns prior to WWII. This was a big factor in the outcome of the Battle of Leyte Gulf. US destroyers held off a superior force with Japanese cruisers! Smokescreens combined with the ability of the US destroyers to deliver a volume of >hits< helped convince the Japanese commander that he was facing a much more powerful force.
When you think of how much the typical modern cruiser, destroyer and frigate costs ($100 million up to $500-$750-$900 million per ship) it's a bit neglectful not to install one or two single or twin barrel guns (114mm/127mm/130mm). They are still useful for air defence, shore bombardment, anti shipping roles, they can also fire chaff and anti heatseeking missile decoy flares, illumination and smoke rounds etc. A laser guided 127mm round is probably as accurate as a missile but the missile would cost 10-20-50+ times more than a precision guided round.
Although it has been produced for a long time, this is still one of the most powerful gunboats in the world at the moment, it has a high rate of fire of 80 rounds / min on 2 guns, with a range of up to 25km with horizontal targets, 15km with aircraft and 8km with missiles. If the battle is fair, a ship using 130 aks will destroy the opponent's ship in minutes.
@@ffandrewd2986tomahawk is a cruise missile, it uses GPS to destroy static targets, not moving targets, and isn't designed to sink ships. Ships have special anti ship missiles to do that
@@michelestefanini5466 At least one block of Tomahawk model had antiship capabilities. The new models are adding them back. But that is far from scariest threat...
Probably the most impressive warship of all time. Designed for autonomous long range operation. Can devastate an entire aircraft carrier battle-group from over 350 miles away. Can provide effective air cover to an entire region. Now that it is being refitted with Kaliber missiles, it can do the same at over 1500mi away.
+tiptopwoman It would be better if the gun mounts weren't in such an awkward position. It would be better to mount the gun turrets on the bow section rather than the stern, or at least mount them so that they aren't firing over the flight deck. You don't want to be caught in a position where need to fire the guns is preventing you from being able to deploy aircraft that may also be necessary in a combat situation.
+Fleet Master Gruber well she was build in an era, where people thought missile was replacing all guns, so on here the guns aren't main weapons, they are more an backup system but can also be used when she is driving away pursuing ships. The helicopter deck is only for anti submarin helicopter or transport helicopter... no fighting helicopter to go against other ships. British Navy learned it the hard way, during the Falklands, that having some small guns is always nice to have. US Navy that was planning new ships at the time, changed around on some of the requirement on there ships, after what the British Navy endured during the Falklands. The British Navy had during the Falklands was, frigates that had only missile and no guns.... they was ... easy targets for Argentinian air force...
Dual use radar directed naval gun systems date from just before World War II. US destroyers were so equipped going into WWII. Lasers, 2-band radar, TV, and digital computers are newer than that, but the basic concept has been around.
twin 130mm, 90 rpm, 340 rounds stored, the AK130 , the guided guns have a range of 40 miles, and can shoot over the horizon, the shells have an initial velocity 4 times the speed of any current missile, and as such its intercept time for close range targets is immense, shells can be fitted with radar, and proximity fuses, P965 destroyers are equipped with 2 of these, on the bow and stern, coupled with the CIWS systems aboard the vessels, presents a formidable obstacle for any plane and missile.
This is a navy video that i love, i hear a real sound of reloading, shell casing and naval gun shot, rather than a naval warfare video with a hard rock music.
Germany, Britian, and the US have all been experimenting on utilizing 155mm guns. Its hard to justify such large guns when the 5" (4.5" in Britain's case) are so much cheaper.
***** The 5'' is not a bad gun... But is only good against small,light armoured targtets. You can't destroy heavy coast fortresses with and you can't even destroy supercarriers with it. Guided missiles are expensive things, from that point of view, bringing some 8 tot 14" guns back to the naval front, is not that expensive at all...
Mike Ennamorato Can't, unfortunately. Aircraft Carriers can stay out of the naval batteries' range and pummel battleships all day long. Destroyers are cheaper to produce, smaller, faster. So yeah.. sadly I don't think we might see battleships again any-time soon.
I agree with you on this. Especially on the different philosophies. The US navy, at the moment, is in the sort of 'police force' mentality, designed to reassure and comfort the ones it's protecting. From what I've seen of modern Russian vessels, the Russians seem to be prepared for the worst. Which I appreciate. I certainly wish we designed our ships like that.... However, the U.S. also puts a lot of stock in onboard electronic systems and countermeasures. Kinda makes up for the weakness.
Nuclear battle cruiser Pyotr Velikiy the reason the US Navy activated the Iowa class during the 1980's. Nothing else can withstand the fire power of these ships
Tim W nope it's the Japanese 459 mm 18 inch gun from the Yamato during world war 2. That warship is as big as the aircraft carrier. That's the biggest gun ever to be on a battleship
The new US destroyer is using 155 mm guns, but are as far as I know not fully operational yet... However those are the tested and the only reason they are not operational yet, would be the ship.
@bandholm is correct the 155 Advanced Weapon System which was put into active service in October 2016 is the largest and most advanced naval gun system in use.
This is the Kiev battle cruiser its loaded to the tits with guns, and missiles. Its considered a modern day battle ship has the most gun mountings and missile mountings of any modern war ship and is as big as some carriers. It maybe a little dated but with upgrades it will be a beast to bring down. Just like the Bismark was a beast. It took 2 battleships, destoyers, crusisers and carrier air craft 2 hours to sink the Bismark.
cualquier fragata moderna tipo f-100 le manda una andanada de 8 misiles harpon a 150 km y adios buque, los cañones son para los guardacosta , hoy dia no sirven para mucho mas o como arma de complemento.....
All you need is a submarine to hit it with a couple torpedoes and its knocked out. The massive Shinano class aircraft carrier of Japan based on the Yamato hull was knocked out without ever engaging in a fight. It was struck by several torpedoes from a US submarine 1/45th its displacement and sank.
A big platform for open seas is good. You can cram more firepower, more radar-power, more countermeasures, more electronics, more ammo, more everything on it. The reason they are not favored today is cost. You can do much of what they do with modern smaller boats. That doens't mean it won't be a formidable asset in the water.
As in the Nimitz class supercarrier? That seems to be the posterchild of the U.S. Navy... You ask someone about a US aircraft carrier, and if they can find it, they'll point out that shape
ТАРКР Петр Великий...самый мощный боевой корабль) после авианосца, сейчас проходит ремонт и модернизацию его аналог Адмирал Нахимов а потом и остальные встанут на модернизацию...)
Submarines are charged with Primary surface fleet engagement. The US Navy has a open policy of not risking surface vessels in naval engagements now unless they must, as the submarine fleet is large and powerful. This is also why the laser turrets are only defensive, lasers can not fire over the horizon, and railguns are limited to nuclear powered vessels, funny noone mentions the US Navys OPERATIONAL , Railgun, with a range of over 79 miles
The United States is currently mounting a rail gun on the Zumwalt, which would be able to engage miles beyond the range of such an antiquated gun like this. Wargames have shown that stealth is more important than armor, and that armaments have become so powerful that generally the ship to see the other first and engage at farther range wins the fight. Missile boats are proving more effective than guns, and while there are systems to defeat missiles, you aren't going to kill multiple fire simultaneously. And remember too that there are various missile systems that defeat anti-missile systems. There are missiles that travel at extreme speed, that are stealth and thus not picked early enough, and that can travel great distances and then splinter into a barrage of smaller missiles that the anti-missile missiles and gattling gun type defenses are overwhelmed by. And remember that modern missile boats can carry upwards of over a hundred missiles, and you simply aren't going to be able to shoot them all down, and generally speaking one impact is enough to complete disable a vessel.
DumbDuck44 but still mate navy still need a gun to fight with small boat u cant used a missle to shot a small boat like high speed boat the iran used + navy still need gun because they got more ammo then missle that why they still used gun just like jetfighter everybody say they dont need gun when missle come out but actualy they still need it + ya that why they made railgun because 80 % of anti ship missle will be destroy by ciws and anti missle missle but they cant used ciws to destroy railgun or canon ammo . canon will still be here at least 20 year more or maybe more who know navy still need canon not every country in the world have railgun now only american it will take 20 or more for other country
OtomeSound A good design could implement both. Primary complement of missiles to disable an enemy ship/ long range engagements, then get in close and blast it to pieces with 8-inchers/ shore bombardment
Missiles will have a rival in the future when the rail gun is (hopefully) perfected. Because how can you defend yourself against a projectile that gets faster as it travels
It also depends on the role your ships intend to play, you two... the U.S. puts more stock in ECM and sensors and the like than armor, but still has a decent amount, appropriate of a police force... Russia has plenty of modern stuff, but they design around a borderline war footing, giving their ships more armor and weapons, appropriate for WAR ships...
Its rate of fire, These are 130mm cannons that a insanely awesome auto loading mechanism. They are undoubtedly better than american and German cannons. Show me a 130mm cannon that can fire so fast.
I don't get it, why doesn't the navy concept a turret with four firing barrels? Like in the WW2, English had a ship with a turret that had four barrels.
Cuz you can't jam an artillery round, am I right? I agree on the bit about relying too much on missiles.. But the US navy doesn't equip to fight sea-based threats anymore; Our swabbies are mostly delegated to anti-piracy or in-land bombardment, which missiles are definitely best for, in terms of accuracy.
That's pretty cool. I wish that the USA wasn't phasing out heavy cannons like this in favor of pure missiles; in a lot of circumstances missiles are better (more accuracy and much longer range), but they can also be intercepted. I suppose if/when they complete the railguns, it's the best of both worlds though.
00008HANK Railguns are enormously effective at what they do. A 200mm Rail gun is as effective as the old 405mm at 10km range. Also the cool down time for the latest generation is something like 10 seconds. Thats way faster than the old 405mm reload.
Erh... did you watch the whole video? There's the Kashtan-M system at the end... which basically IS Tunguska. Except with Gatlings (9000-10000 rpm vs 2000 rpm). The ammo is the same. Also, a 30 mm CIWS is hardly useful against any bigger combatants or ground support.
most militaries in the world do. Russia is quite militaristic, so theyre bound to have bleeding-edge military tech close to, on par, or even surpassing their western counterparts...
Actually newer russian weapons deployed on the Udaloy class ships too fire smart munitions. I just like the AK-130 because it fires fast, far and effectively. It will never jam or missfire. You have to hand it to the russians they make the most reliable guns in the world. probably more original accuracy then it's newer versions/counterparts (Then again guided munitions hamper original accuracy (this is on the newer ruski guns)) but by far the most mechanically reliable, usable and powerful.
Nice to see some common sense here, and you're right, a single SS-N-19 Shipwreck missile can break a Destroyer in half with a single shot, I'm talking a mach 2, city bus size machine with a giant warhead that can reach a target 700 Kms away. People think I'm being pro-Russian, I'm not, I'm just stating the facts, at long ranges, the Russian Navy does outreach anything in the sea. And the US-Navy Command knows it.
Notice how Russian ships look like floating fortresses, bristling with guns and missiles. In US NAVY ships you can only see the main cannon and a couple of missile launchers. Very different philosophies.
because of a naval guns ability to fire, OVER the Horizon, this is why we for a time brought back the Iowa class battleships, for a short time, there was a tech gap between missles and intercept systems, missles being nearly worthless. Submarines are effective because they can fire in essence under the horizon as well, not going to explain it all, educate yourself so you do not look the fool. And railguns are not in common use, because of maintaining them, they are limited in shots to repair
As Moskva showed, having a couple systems that actually function is a lot more useful than filling every ship with as many weapons as possible to make it look scary on paper.
Battle range of cannons is too short for attacking the enemy. So they are air defense instead, longer ranged than the AA machine gun but shorter ranged than close range defensive missiles.
A Grizzly bear and a scorpion is what you're saying? Oth will kil you. One's big, scary, powerfull looking, will kill you if it's threatened. The other, small, descrete, with a sting that can also kill you. Still, the AK-130 fires at 3x the rounds (if you include double barrels, fire rate is more 1.5x) per volley than the closer (smaller) US or British counterpart. One thing is for sure, it's russian so it won't jam. I've never actually seen a russian gun jam or missfire.The AK-47 mentality.
"Outside of the US there's nothing more amusing than a group of americans discussing politics." Nothing more amusing inside the US than watching other country's people laughing at us, not realizing their not important enough to be watched themselves.
LOL! This is not about the rate of fire it's not like they are firing a machine gun. It's about accuracy and effectiveness. The US and British warships are well using advance smart munitions that are radar guided. They can change the rounds purpose before it even hits the target. Soft Kill, Air Burst, Anti-Armor, Proximity etc.. etc...Russians don't have that...:)
you can't fault the Russians - at least they know you have to have plenty of ammo. be the last guy to run out sort of approach. be it railgun ammo, old fashioned ammo or missile ammo. just don't run out
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
It seems like a massive improvement over AK-47
+8b64z Laughed my ass off.
In sheer firepower yes, this thing is a real drag to carry around though.
nanomage
moron :D
Does it come with a shoulder swing?
This is one of my favorite naval guns. It just has such a raw look about it. The soviets sure knew how to set themselves apart from everyone else with their designs.
The infamous soviet apocalypse tank turret in red alert series is designed after this gun irl. The irl version is larger in caliber and a much faster fire rate however.
I love how the Russians make everything look so tough and intimidating no frills just right to the purpose .
And half of the time they don't work for shit. The Russian mind set is to throw a handful of rocks and you should hit something.
Well works or doesn't it still has kind of a industrial cool factor.
MrBarlion That was sort of the mindset of the Japanese going into WWII. It was the naval combat dogma from the previous war. Meanwhile the US was already equipping warships with radar guided dual use guns prior to WWII. This was a big factor in the outcome of the Battle of Leyte Gulf. US destroyers held off a superior force with Japanese cruisers! Smokescreens combined with the ability of the US destroyers to deliver a volume of >hits< helped convince the Japanese commander that he was facing a much more powerful force.
MrBarlion Like the AK?
Lol i got AK and M16. Mean while M16 got jam my AK never stop.
American Videos: *Takes 25 minutes to start firing*
Russian Videos: *Starts firing already*
Had no idea it could track anything that small. Fantastic! Thanks Mike
the best modern naval gun
When you think of how much the typical modern cruiser, destroyer and frigate costs ($100 million up to $500-$750-$900 million per ship) it's a bit neglectful not to install one or two single or twin barrel guns (114mm/127mm/130mm). They are still useful for air defence, shore bombardment, anti shipping roles, they can also fire chaff and anti heatseeking missile decoy flares, illumination and smoke rounds etc. A laser guided 127mm round is probably as accurate as a missile but the missile would cost 10-20-50+ times more than a precision guided round.
Aircraft: **exists in general**
A dual 130mm cannon with impressive ROF: *Shame*
Although it has been produced for a long time, this is still one of the most powerful gunboats in the world at the moment, it has a high rate of fire of 80 rounds / min on 2 guns, with a range of up to 25km with horizontal targets, 15km with aircraft and 8km with missiles. If the battle is fair, a ship using 130 aks will destroy the opponent's ship in minutes.
**tomahawk cruise missile has entered the chat**
@@ffandrewd2986tomahawk is a cruise missile, it uses GPS to destroy static targets, not moving targets, and isn't designed to sink ships. Ships have special anti ship missiles to do that
@@michelestefanini5466
At least one block of Tomahawk model had antiship capabilities. The new models are adding them back.
But that is far from scariest threat...
@@sunrisejackdaw1779 yep just yesterday I discovered tomahawk anti ship missiles
Probably the most impressive warship of all time.
Designed for autonomous long range operation. Can devastate an entire aircraft carrier battle-group from over 350 miles away.
Can provide effective air cover to an entire region.
Now that it is being refitted with Kaliber missiles, it can do the same at over 1500mi away.
+tiptopwoman It would be better if the gun mounts weren't in such an awkward position. It would be better to mount the gun turrets on the bow section rather than the stern, or at least mount them so that they aren't firing over the flight deck. You don't want to be caught in a position where need to fire the guns is preventing you from being able to deploy aircraft that may also be necessary in a combat situation.
+Fleet Master Gruber well she was build in an era, where people thought missile was replacing all guns, so on here the guns aren't main weapons, they are more an backup system but can also be used when she is driving away pursuing ships. The helicopter deck is only for anti submarin helicopter or transport helicopter... no fighting helicopter to go against other ships.
British Navy learned it the hard way, during the Falklands, that having some small guns is always nice to have. US Navy that was planning new ships at the time, changed around on some of the requirement on there ships, after what the British Navy endured during the Falklands. The British Navy had during the Falklands was, frigates that had only missile and no guns.... they was ... easy targets for Argentinian air force...
@@Dovoline3 The autocannons can also be used as AA guns, in fact they were probably more intedned for this use in the first place.
@@Dovoline3 yeah they put missiles in front we cant do anything about it its *design*
And now she’s sunk
Okay that is a fucking scary piece of kit
Dual use radar directed naval gun systems date from just before World War II. US destroyers were so equipped going into WWII. Lasers, 2-band radar, TV, and digital computers are newer than that, but the basic concept has been around.
Those Turbolasers are awesome!
1:31 - 1:35
youtube highlight of the week
twin 130mm, 90 rpm, 340 rounds stored, the AK130 , the guided guns have a range of 40 miles, and can shoot over the horizon, the shells have an initial velocity 4 times the speed of any current missile, and as such its intercept time for close range targets is immense, shells can be fitted with radar, and proximity fuses, P965 destroyers are equipped with 2 of these, on the bow and stern, coupled with the CIWS systems aboard the vessels, presents a formidable obstacle for any plane and missile.
Nuclear Kirov class.
Note to self: put a couple lanyards on those barrel covers so it's easier to remove them before shooting.
This weapon and a Vulcan in the same video, must be Christmas.
It looks like they duct tape guns wherever they had space.
This is a navy video that i love, i hear a real sound of reloading, shell casing and naval gun shot, rather than a naval warfare video with a hard rock music.
US navy depends on stealth and long range precision guided weapon, Russian navy depends on firepower.
US warships realy need to have one or two of this type of guns again.Bring back the big guns!
Germany, Britian, and the US have all been experimenting on utilizing 155mm guns. Its hard to justify such large guns when the 5" (4.5" in Britain's case) are so much cheaper.
*****
The 5'' is not a bad gun...
But is only good against small,light armoured targtets. You can't destroy heavy coast fortresses with and you can't even destroy supercarriers with it.
Guided missiles are expensive things, from that point of view, bringing some 8 tot 14" guns back to the naval front, is not that expensive at all...
FrightfulAccountant I would love to see the Iowa and her 406's recommissioned.
The world needs ships like he Iowa again! Only a matter of time to prove it!
Mike Ennamorato Can't, unfortunately. Aircraft Carriers can stay out of the naval batteries' range and pummel battleships all day long. Destroyers are cheaper to produce, smaller, faster. So yeah.. sadly I don't think we might see battleships again any-time soon.
Very good point here. Cwiz has yet to achieve anti-shell capability, as far as I know. "Incoming artillery always has the right of way."
I agree with you on this. Especially on the different philosophies. The US navy, at the moment, is in the sort of 'police force' mentality, designed to reassure and comfort the ones it's protecting. From what I've seen of modern Russian vessels, the Russians seem to be prepared for the worst. Which I appreciate. I certainly wish we designed our ships like that.... However, the U.S. also puts a lot of stock in onboard electronic systems and countermeasures. Kinda makes up for the weakness.
That thing just looks freaking awesome...
very enigmatic ! we still hear the sound of shell magazine and its lift, and we see many other things around, including the waves…
Nuclear battle cruiser Pyotr Velikiy the reason the US Navy activated the Iowa class during the 1980's. Nothing else can withstand the fire power of these ships
I believe their 130mm is the largest caliber naval gun in operation anywhere. But don't know for sure.
Tim W nope it's the Japanese 459 mm 18 inch gun from the Yamato during world war 2. That warship is as big as the aircraft carrier. That's the biggest gun ever to be on a battleship
"In operation". The Yamato was sunk in 1945, therefore its 18 inch guns are not in operaetion and isn't relevant to that comment.
The new US destroyer is using 155 mm guns, but are as far as I know not fully operational yet... However those are the tested and the only reason they are not operational yet, would be the ship.
@bandholm is correct the 155 Advanced Weapon System which was put into active service in October 2016 is the largest and most advanced naval gun system in use.
Except when the US Navy pulls the Iowas out of mothballs for shore bombardment. 16" guns rule!
US and British Modern Naval Guns fire Smart Munitions. With 6 different settings. It is more effective that the Dual Barrel AK-130....:)
nice autoloader
This is the Kiev battle cruiser its loaded to the tits with guns, and missiles. Its considered a modern day battle ship has the most gun mountings and missile mountings of any modern war ship and is as big as some carriers.
It maybe a little dated but with upgrades it will be a beast to bring down. Just like the Bismark was a beast. It took 2 battleships, destoyers, crusisers and carrier air craft 2 hours to sink the Bismark.
ehem it name kirov mate not kiev ...
cualquier fragata moderna tipo f-100 le manda una andanada de 8 misiles harpon a 150 km y adios buque, los cañones son para los guardacosta , hoy dia no sirven para mucho mas o como arma de complemento.....
cabo norte Harpoon missiles are shit for many reasons. One of them is - they are not armored. And this AK-130 gun's main purpose is AA defense.
All you need is a submarine to hit it with a couple torpedoes and its knocked out. The massive Shinano class aircraft carrier of Japan based on the Yamato hull was knocked out without ever engaging in a fight. It was struck by several torpedoes from a US submarine 1/45th its displacement and sank.
mgibbs88
This ship have enough power to defeat most of the submarines
What's with the audio..?
there was this huge build up of anticipation for the first fire and then camera change and these two silent anticlimactic puffs of smoke
wow Soviet era technology, brilliant...
Now thát, is a gun.
These look like they're similar in size to the 8" guns that they used to have on US Navy Cruisers.
Errrr 130mm vs 203mm, the circumference of the bores are 408mm on this vs 637mm on say a salem.
You're off by like 56% lol
what ship is this since it has miniguns, rockets and GIANT GUNS
And that is 100 years of manufacture was able to produce, congrats xD
An advanced enough system could target multiple targets at once and switch after each shot... which is good if it's a small caliber, high RoF weapon.
23,000 km is not a bad distance, it's in the horizon.
A big platform for open seas is good. You can cram more firepower, more radar-power, more countermeasures, more electronics, more ammo, more everything on it. The reason they are not favored today is cost. You can do much of what they do with modern smaller boats. That doens't mean it won't be a formidable asset in the water.
Now we are developing 20 mach air breathing cruise missles, just try and shoot these down! lol
As in the Nimitz class supercarrier? That seems to be the posterchild of the U.S. Navy... You ask someone about a US aircraft carrier, and if they can find it, they'll point out that shape
I could just picture a really short sailor trying to take off the gun covers, jumping up and down.
Holly fuck they have perfect auto loader systems
ТАРКР Петр Великий...самый мощный боевой корабль) после авианосца, сейчас проходит ремонт и модернизацию его аналог Адмирал Нахимов а потом и остальные встанут на модернизацию...)
At 0:54 looks like the gun over traveled. Perhaps the engineers need to re-look at the damping ratio.
Needs more PID adjustments.
looks like a film editing issue.
Submarines are charged with Primary surface fleet engagement. The US Navy has a open policy of not risking surface vessels in naval engagements now unless they must, as the submarine fleet is large and powerful.
This is also why the laser turrets are only defensive, lasers can not fire over the horizon, and railguns are limited to nuclear powered vessels, funny noone mentions the US Navys OPERATIONAL , Railgun, with a range of over 79 miles
Силе и мощи Российского оружия,полная уважуха!!!
...*the audio is awesome.......pppfff*
What happened to them big 'ol guns on ships? I mean...You're not stopping that massive shell coming towards your ship.
The United States is currently mounting a rail gun on the Zumwalt, which would be able to engage miles beyond the range of such an antiquated gun like this.
Wargames have shown that stealth is more important than armor, and that armaments have become so powerful that generally the ship to see the other first and engage at farther range wins the fight. Missile boats are proving more effective than guns, and while there are systems to defeat missiles, you aren't going to kill multiple fire simultaneously.
And remember too that there are various missile systems that defeat anti-missile systems. There are missiles that travel at extreme speed, that are stealth and thus not picked early enough, and that can travel great distances and then splinter into a barrage of smaller missiles that the anti-missile missiles and gattling gun type defenses are overwhelmed by. And remember that modern missile boats can carry upwards of over a hundred missiles, and you simply aren't going to be able to shoot them all down, and generally speaking one impact is enough to complete disable a vessel.
DumbDuck44 Well...That answered everything!
DumbDuck44 but still mate navy still need a gun to fight with small boat u cant used a missle to shot a small boat like high speed boat the iran used + navy still need gun because they got more ammo then missle that why they still used gun just like jetfighter everybody say they dont need gun when missle come out but actualy they still need it + ya that why they made railgun because 80 % of anti ship missle will be destroy by ciws and anti missle missle but they cant used ciws to destroy railgun or canon ammo . canon will still be here at least 20 year more or maybe more who know navy still need canon not every country in the world have railgun now only american it will take 20 or more for other country
OtomeSound A good design could implement both. Primary complement of missiles to disable an enemy ship/ long range engagements, then get in close and blast it to pieces with 8-inchers/ shore bombardment
Missiles will have a rival in the future when the rail gun is (hopefully) perfected. Because how can you defend yourself against a projectile that gets faster as it travels
emmmm rail gun shells dont go faster as the travel...
On the contrary, they do.:)
It also depends on the role your ships intend to play, you two... the U.S. puts more stock in ECM and sensors and the like than armor, but still has a decent amount, appropriate of a police force... Russia has plenty of modern stuff, but they design around a borderline war footing, giving their ships more armor and weapons, appropriate for WAR ships...
every country has lasers. No country, however, has laser weapons.
a full automatic 130mm/70 double barrel cannon GREAT! now we are dead T_T
Its rate of fire, These are 130mm cannons that a insanely awesome auto loading mechanism. They are undoubtedly better than american and German cannons.
Show me a 130mm cannon that can fire so fast.
It is not 130m it is 230 mm
I don't get it, why doesn't the navy concept a turret with four firing barrels? Like in the WW2, English had a ship with a turret that had four barrels.
amazing weapon
Cuz you can't jam an artillery round, am I right? I agree on the bit about relying too much on missiles.. But the US navy doesn't equip to fight sea-based threats anymore; Our swabbies are mostly delegated to anti-piracy or in-land bombardment, which missiles are definitely best for, in terms of accuracy.
Наверно, мало кто понял насколько мощная эта система))
Ergh, some rail guns in testing have a 100 Nautical Mile Range...That's a little bit more than 8km.
GREAT GUN
Commander THANOS, Rain Fire 🔥.
Dang.. heavy hitters
That's pretty cool. I wish that the USA wasn't phasing out heavy cannons like this in favor of pure missiles; in a lot of circumstances missiles are better (more accuracy and much longer range), but they can also be intercepted.
I suppose if/when they complete the railguns, it's the best of both worlds though.
railguns are verry ineffektive verry in acuret at 18km and it needs a cooldown time.
5.1 inch is not a heavy cannon, it is small caliber for the navy.
00008HANK
Railguns are enormously effective at what they do. A 200mm Rail gun is as effective as the old 405mm at 10km range. Also the cool down time for the latest generation is something like 10 seconds. Thats way faster than the old 405mm reload.
Gordon Lawrence after 3 shots cooldown 30 min...
Not the Mach 11 BAE systems one
Good, but not good enough. The Bofors 120 mm naval gun from 1951 has double the firerate. :3
Same rate of fire. Bofors 45 rpm each barrel, ak 130 - 90rpm for both it means 45 for each barrels
Erh... did you watch the whole video? There's the Kashtan-M system at the end... which basically IS Tunguska. Except with Gatlings (9000-10000 rpm vs 2000 rpm). The ammo is the same.
Also, a 30 mm CIWS is hardly useful against any bigger combatants or ground support.
No war..peace!
This cannon is also for CIWS use just to know
With the buckshot ammos
OK, high rate of fire. I was thinking about the impact of 8" and above naval rifles.
Vexed, did you record and edit this video yourself? What an odd composition for a video demonstrating a military weapon. Effective, but so odd.
yeah, this is old, definitely.
modern ships would rather put a Tunguska on it .
most militaries in the world do. Russia is quite militaristic, so theyre bound to have bleeding-edge military tech close to, on par, or even surpassing their western counterparts...
Actually newer russian weapons deployed on the Udaloy class ships too fire smart munitions. I just like the AK-130 because it fires fast, far and effectively. It will never jam or missfire. You have to hand it to the russians they make the most reliable guns in the world. probably more original accuracy then it's newer versions/counterparts (Then again guided munitions hamper original accuracy (this is on the newer ruski guns)) but by far the most mechanically reliable, usable and powerful.
Nice to see some common sense here, and you're right, a single SS-N-19 Shipwreck missile can break a Destroyer in half with a single shot, I'm talking a mach 2, city bus size machine with a giant warhead that can reach a target 700 Kms away. People think I'm being pro-Russian, I'm not, I'm just stating the facts, at long ranges, the Russian Navy does outreach anything in the sea. And the US-Navy Command knows it.
That thing can shoot 100 round under a minute at 41 Miles
0:59 to wszystko jest zrobione tam w środku na bazie taśmociągu przemysłowego np fabryka czekolady E Wedel
Notice how Russian ships look like floating fortresses, bristling with guns and missiles. In US NAVY ships you can only see the main cannon and a couple of missile launchers. Very different philosophies.
It does not. They have large presence in the country, but they do not control 90% of the territory.
its a 130mm gun system
because of a naval guns ability to fire, OVER the Horizon, this is why we for a time brought back the Iowa class battleships, for a short time, there was a tech gap between missles and intercept systems, missles being nearly worthless.
Submarines are effective because they can fire in essence under the horizon as well, not going to explain it all, educate yourself so you do not look the fool.
And railguns are not in common use, because of maintaining them, they are limited in shots to repair
ohhh....I would have believed it if it were not for the history of America since Roosevelt!
I wonder the US navy hasn't placed more importance on deck guns? Most USN ships have just one 5 inch gun.
As Moskva showed, having a couple systems that actually function is a lot more useful than filling every ship with as many weapons as possible to make it look scary on paper.
Battle range of cannons is too short for attacking the enemy. So they are air defense instead, longer ranged than the AA machine gun but shorter ranged than close range defensive missiles.
The naval ak130 just looks like an AA gun
It does honestly
130mmの連装砲とかロマンしかなくて最高
It looks very futuristic too.
Pretty sure we can drill holes in that at the speed of light.
*just an upgraded ak47*
I love it
A Grizzly bear and a scorpion is what you're saying? Oth will kil you. One's big, scary, powerfull looking, will kill you if it's threatened. The other, small, descrete, with a sting that can also kill you. Still, the AK-130 fires at 3x the rounds (if you include double barrels, fire rate is more 1.5x) per volley than the closer (smaller) US or British counterpart. One thing is for sure, it's russian so it won't jam. I've never actually seen a russian gun jam or missfire.The AK-47 mentality.
"Outside of the US there's nothing more amusing than a group of americans discussing politics."
Nothing more amusing inside the US than watching other country's people laughing at us, not realizing their not important enough to be watched themselves.
과거에 러시아함대가 아닌것 같습니다 대단하군요
Whatever make you happy...:)
it is a fortress armed with torrent
This system fires boardside salvo's only..... ?
no it has 360 cover since its in a turret.
LOL! This is not about the rate of fire it's not like they are firing a machine gun. It's about accuracy and effectiveness. The US and British warships are well using advance smart munitions that are radar guided. They can change the rounds purpose before it even hits the target. Soft Kill, Air Burst, Anti-Armor, Proximity etc.. etc...Russians don't have that...:)
imagine putting that on treads
Only one shot of the 130mm he VT will destroy any plane or misile
130mm
On that subject; I would hate to be the motherfucker on maintenance when a gun jams with a dumb round.
you can't fault the Russians - at least they know you have to have plenty of ammo.
be the last guy to run out sort of approach.
be it railgun ammo, old fashioned ammo or missile ammo.
just don't run out