Kashtan; Кортик; экспортное наименование «Каштан»; CADS-N-1 CIWS 

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

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

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

А ты много ракет скользящих по морю видел?

Soviet*

95

Apart from they have LRASM