@@mystyle_jm8997 Phalanx: Designed in late 60’s 20 mm Rate of fire 4,500 rpm Effective range 1,500 m May have slightly better radar (?) Kashtan guns: Designed in late 70’s 30 mm (more powerful, potentially less accurate) Rate of fire 10,000 rpm Effective range 4,000 m Kashtan missiles: Range 10,000 m Kashtan and its new iteration Pantsir are the mother of all CIWS platforms. Russian ships were expected to be under greater threat from air assault, and this overkill of a CIWS weapons system is a cheap way to help protect Russian ships from missile attack. The only real US anti-ship missile for decades was the harpoon, an ancient, unsophisticated, and slow missile which can easily be engaged by CIWS. In contrast Soviet and Russian anti-ship missiles were more modern, advanced, and several times faster because Russia couldn’t rely on striking NATO ships with its aircraft and the navy had to be more capable of offensive action on its own. To put it into perspective the harpoon is subsonic. The Soviet P-700 could fly at mach 2.5 and the modern Russian Zircon can fly at mach 8-9. Under ideal circumstances a phalanx would have less than half a second to react to and shoot down Zircon. It couldn’t even line up a shot in that amount of time, much less fire enough rounds to stop it. Even if by some miracle it did, the ship would get pelted by 2.5 tons of hypersonic debris and jet fuel which will knock the ship out of action for days to months, depending on what exactly gets damaged. A Kashtan would have 41 seconds to shoot down a harpoon missile. In that time it could fire 8-16 missiles and use guns on another 15-16 missiles. The difference between shooting down 0 and shooting down 23-32 (realistically I expect it to be slightly lower than that). There is clearly a massive difference in the tactical value the Russian and American navies get out of their CIWS platforms. Even a great CIWS would be of little use against supersonic Soviet missiles not to mention Zircon so the USA hasn’t bothered to upgrade the phalanx because it wouldn’t really help. Instead it has focused on improving medium and short ranged naval SAMs. Modern US destroyers actually removed one phalanx from the deck to save on costs, instead hoping the SAMs will be enough to protect the ships. On an individual ship level America’s neglect towards CIWS is a bad move. SAM systems have historically proven unreliable when push comes to shove. On a strategic level it makes sense. The USA has a massive naval edge over all contenders and saving costs by ignoring CIWS development and deployment is a net positive for the navy even if it results in a ship or two being hit in some future war. It’s probably not necessary against third world holes and against major powers like Russia or China it wouldn’t make any real difference.
Actually, Kashtan was developed in 1989, so I believed that American don't have an American counterpart of Kashtan. Phalanx vs. AK-630, it's more like M16/AR-15 vs AK-47 from accuracy, firepower, range and penetration.
While I'm sure NATO system like Phalanx, RAM and Goalkeeper are capable but this thing is an absolute beast. The reload capability alone is something I wish the NATO systems had..
probably when the onbord system losses lock (due to low rcs) or the targits is falling from the sky or the computer estemates that the terojectory of the targit is deemed to hit the ground or sea
Combining missiles with 2 multi-barrel rotary 30mm guns, was a brilliant and revolutionary idea. But I think, that the new Pantsir-M, is even better.
I Never get tired of watching it firing with its 30mm cannons
Comparison with American Phalanx 20mm?
@@mystyle_jm8997
Phalanx:
Designed in late 60’s
20 mm
Rate of fire 4,500 rpm
Effective range 1,500 m
May have slightly better radar (?)
Kashtan guns:
Designed in late 70’s
30 mm (more powerful, potentially less accurate)
Rate of fire 10,000 rpm
Effective range 4,000 m
Kashtan missiles:
Range 10,000 m
Kashtan and its new iteration Pantsir are the mother of all CIWS platforms. Russian ships were expected to be under greater threat from air assault, and this overkill of a CIWS weapons system is a cheap way to help protect Russian ships from missile attack. The only real US anti-ship missile for decades was the harpoon, an ancient, unsophisticated, and slow missile which can easily be engaged by CIWS.
In contrast Soviet and Russian anti-ship missiles were more modern, advanced, and several times faster because Russia couldn’t rely on striking NATO ships with its aircraft and the navy had to be more capable of offensive action on its own.
To put it into perspective the harpoon is subsonic. The Soviet P-700 could fly at mach 2.5 and the modern Russian Zircon can fly at mach 8-9.
Under ideal circumstances a phalanx would have less than half a second to react to and shoot down Zircon. It couldn’t even line up a shot in that amount of time, much less fire enough rounds to stop it. Even if by some miracle it did, the ship would get pelted by 2.5 tons of hypersonic debris and jet fuel which will knock the ship out of action for days to months, depending on what exactly gets damaged.
A Kashtan would have 41 seconds to shoot down a harpoon missile. In that time it could fire 8-16 missiles and use guns on another 15-16 missiles.
The difference between shooting down 0 and shooting down 23-32 (realistically I expect it to be slightly lower than that). There is clearly a massive difference in the tactical value the Russian and American navies get out of their CIWS platforms.
Even a great CIWS would be of little use against supersonic Soviet missiles not to mention Zircon so the USA hasn’t bothered to upgrade the phalanx because it wouldn’t really help. Instead it has focused on improving medium and short ranged naval SAMs. Modern US destroyers actually removed one phalanx from the deck to save on costs, instead hoping the SAMs will be enough to protect the ships.
On an individual ship level America’s neglect towards CIWS is a bad move. SAM systems have historically proven unreliable when push comes to shove. On a strategic level it makes sense. The USA has a massive naval edge over all contenders and saving costs by ignoring CIWS development and deployment is a net positive for the navy even if it results in a ship or two being hit in some future war. It’s probably not necessary against third world holes and against major powers like Russia or China it wouldn’t make any real difference.
Actually, Kashtan was developed in 1989, so I believed that American don't have an American counterpart of Kashtan.
Phalanx vs. AK-630, it's more like M16/AR-15 vs AK-47 from accuracy, firepower, range and penetration.
@@mystyle_jm8997 no, lashtan is developed in 1980 and introduced in 1989
Love the background music :)
the sound of 2x30mm six barreled guns firing simultaneously...
that brrrrrt.. sound is truly satifying...
That’s the coolest thing i’ve ever seen. Straight out of metal gear.
Привет из России. Мы любим сербию!
While I'm sure NATO system like Phalanx, RAM and Goalkeeper are capable but this thing is an absolute beast. The reload capability alone is something I wish the NATO systems had..
NATO is full of drunks....They can’t think straight.
@@harrisn3693 as someone living in Canada, I (we) hate NATO
@@walterbrunswick your suckass president Trudeau doesn't seem to think that, instead being a yes man for every piece for horse shit the US belts out
Imagine this with airburst 30mm rounds. Game for any artillery round/ashm would be so over
@@walterbrunswick Я как русский уважаю НАТО за их вооружение и выдержу с мощью
Braco Rusi,govorite RUSKI da vas razume ceo svet.Pozdrav iz Srbije
HEY FROM GREECE. TOP.
kashton just looks AMAZING and is instantly regonicable as a russian design.
I am Heavy Weapons Guy. And this is my new weapon!
Pantsir me the new version of kashtan.
very good gun
И тебе привет от братской России!
Who found this after watching Hunter Killer
Good For the Philippine Navy
how often do they get a live fire practice ?
fcuking terminator is that man...
Soundtrack slaps
Dear Russia, please use the Kashtan on some Somali pirates.
Thank You
Вот где она когда так нужна?
This thing looks like a boss fight.
Bro its like a tv ad for the Russians new ciws
The only system I've seen shot Down an anti ship missile sea skimming head on is the goal keeper .
А ты много ракет скользящих по морю видел?
How does it know when to stop shooting a target automatically...?
When the target is reduced to atoms it will stop
@@reahs4815 lol. right answer
when the radar signal disintegrate into small pieces
probably when the onbord system losses lock (due to low rcs) or the targits is falling from the sky or the computer estemates that the terojectory of the targit is deemed to hit the ground or sea
Russia 👍👍👍
Soviet*
ให้เห็นอ่างเก็บน้ำ
neither do i !
HOLY SHIT, TWIN BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTS
Сербы братья!
yo where is Ray Mak???
simly try to use Northern Sea Route
Neat
Palma even better :-)
Kashtan
0:41
Thing looks spooky as fuck jesus
Welcome to 1985
95
80s technology
is shooting it a fun 1:01
Gun tsar bomba nuklir amunisi pistol bom nuklir rudal otomatis kabel otomatis
but ..pour Somalians havn't military aviation))
Kkkkk então.....muitos milhões perdidos devido 1 simples drone ter atacado..... Muito recursos mal utilizados
Chestnut 🌰
😂😂😂 humanos e suas máquinas de brinquedos 😂😂😂
Moscwa was sinkt by seamine now Naptun.
doesnt do jack shit because its blind. In real combat they will lose as always.
Also known as the reason the US is not developing any more asms.
Apart from they have LRASM
Это херня, я их собираю на Маш заводе, значит стрелять не будут