[go: up one dir, main page]

Jump to content

Talk:AK-630

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mistake in descripton

[edit]

The description state that

The electro-optical system can detect MiG-21 sized aerial target 7 km away while torpedo boat sized surface targets can be detected at 70 km away.

I think the author inverted the data and that in fact it should read

The electro-optical system can detect MiG-21 sized aerial target 70 km away while torpedo boat sized surface targets can be detected at 7 km away.

Airplanes in the sky are fairly easy to spot, while small boats are concealed by waves and curvature of the Earth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgienr (talkcontribs) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— I definitely agree - the mistake is beyond silly, due to physics. Placing the sensors atop a 19m mast (the height of a Tarantul-class missile boat) would result with a physical horizon at a distance of 15,6 km. Placing the sensors atop a 30m mast (the height of Sovremenny-class destroyer) extends this to 19,6 km. Observation of surface objects beyond the horizon, and "70 km" for a surface target as stated would definitely be beyond the horizon, is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a ship-mounted sensor of ANY kind. Wa-totem (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sources and lots of questionable content.

[edit]

This entire article needs to be reviewed and flagged (reliable sources to most claims and comparisons badly needed!). Most claims and numbers smell more like hybrid and propaganda, as opposed to fact-based substantiated information regarding the subject. I have repeatedly noticed this with articles of this nature (russian military equipment, and inflated numbers, often attached to alleged comparisons to American counterparts and equipment) (probably to falsely insinuate an alleged superiority of the soviet/russian equipment) this needs to be thoroughly reviewed and addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.181.153.184 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above complaint, and editing of some article sources as unreliable, seem to be baseless nationalism. Most military performance statistics are either classified or cannot be independently verified. And most countries have exaggerated weapon statistics at one point or another (for example the American TOW missile system greatly inflated armor penetration values). As the complainer hasn't gone through every single military article (or even the ones linked to this one) and labeled any claimed statistics as unreliable unless they were verified by independent tests, I'd have to assume his complaint and edit is based just on personal bias. Unless the complainer can find an independent source that tested the weapons, the claimed official specifications ARE the most reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8B4:8F40:B57B:59B8:D3C9:9029 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AK-630. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AK-630. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comparison

[edit]

The comparison in unsourced and there is some wrongs, Data from navweaps: Phalanx projectile weight and speed: 100 gr., 1113 m/s Goalkeeper: 225 gr, 1224 m/s Dardo: 880 gr, 1025 m/s AK630: 390 gr, 900 m/s taking in the count that heavier projectiles loss speed slower the range of the comparison table are wrong Francomemoria (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operational history

[edit]

Suggest adding operational history section, now that a ship armed with these systems has recently been hit by two subsonic anti ship missiles in the Ukraine conflict. 90.194.247.173 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]