果然，野雞軍武專家開始耍賤招
因為野雞軍武專家的最高指導原則是：
『只要是軍武討論，不論我說得對不對，基本上我一定是對的』
『即使被別人指正，我也一定對，是別人錯』
『如果發現我錯了，我就硬ㄠ，順便把別人正確的觀念偷學起來』
『如果有人要我認錯，我裝沒看見就好』
果然，如我所預言，現在的發展就是：
野雞軍武專家『一皮天下無難事』，轉移話題，打太極，不肯認輸，逃，厚臉皮
損我損了半天，只會模糊焦點
看我怎麼修理你這隻半瓶水的野雞！
節錄自JANE'S NAVAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS, P.370：
In 1997, the US Navy Began a program replacing(取代) the Phalanx (qv) CIWS in major warship with RAM. The program began with the ‘Nimitz’ (CVN76) class aircraft carriers beginning with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and followed by the class’s lead ship ‘Ticonderoga’ (CG 47) class cruisers with GMVLS MK 41 (qv) are to follow from FY01 at the rate of four ships a year with the Phalanx replaced on a one-for-one basis for use against anti-ship missiles and surface targets abd an upgrade contract awarded to Raytheon Missile Systems to enable the interception of both helicopters and surface targets will be completed in 2001. The program will be extended to ‘Arleigh Burke’ (DDG 51) class destroyers from FY05
http://mbox.hchs.hc.edu.tw/~militar...anavy/DDG51.htm
CIWS方面，目前柏克級Flight2A仍使用兩組MK-15方陣近迫武器系統，未來會被RAM公羊短程防空飛彈系統取代
http://navysite.de/weapons/phalanx.htm
As it stands right now, the Navy plans to replace the Phalanx mounts by Rolling Airframe Missile Systems (RAM) or Sea RAM.
http://mbox.hchs.hc.edu.tw/~militar...antiair-RAM.htm
美國海軍未來計畫以射程較長的RIM-162發展型海麻雀(ESSM)短程防空飛彈與射程較短的公羊飛彈取代MK-15方陣快砲與現役的RIM-7海麻雀飛彈，組成下一代美國艦隊的近程艦隊防空網。
http://ited.yingwa.edu.hk/~ywc-011132/weapon.htm#mk15
但是目前美國海軍並無繼續發展下一代全新機砲式CIWS系統的打算，而將注意力放在新一代的短程防空飛彈系統如RAM、麻雀ESSM等，畢竟機砲式CIWS仍有許多先天上的弱點，例如有效射程太短、一次只能同時對付一個目標、彈艙容量有限、機械式旋轉座轉速有限等，使其較不適合應付多方向飽和攻擊或者攔截新一代的超音速反艦飛彈。此外，歐洲國家也發展出新一代Aster-15短程防空飛彈，成為下一代歐洲艦艇的近距離反飛彈武器，足見以新式短程防空飛彈系統取代機砲式CIWS已經成為未來的趨勢。
哈哈哈，誰犯錯啊？基本上如果我說的RAM取代方陣是錯的，那JANE'S NAVAL WEAPONS SYSTEMS這本書上所寫的也就是錯的
對啦對啦，你講的都對啦，比世界知名的軍武參考書籍還對啦
另外，seaRAM難道就不是RAM的一種嗎？難道seaRAM發射的不是RAM嗎？
來自Raytheon的官方說法：
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/031302.html
SEARAM is a low-risk, low-cost evolution of the proven Phalanx Block 1B Close-In Weapon System and the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System, the latter produced jointly by Raytheon and RAMSYS of Germany. Intended to enlarge the keep-out range against sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, the current SEARAM utilizes the Phalanx sensors with minor modifications made to the launcher to allow for the installation of an 11-round RAM missile guide.
另一網站說法
http://navysite.de/launcher/ram.htm
The SEA RAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System under development by RSC and RAMSYS is an evolved Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) comprising key attributes of both the existing Phalanx CIWS and the RAM Guided Missile Weapon System. SEA RAM is designed to extend the battle space of the CIWS and enable the ship to effectively engage multiple targets.
Leveraged technology from Phalanx and RAM integrates elements of each system into the self-contained SEA RAM System. An 11-missile round RAM guide assembly, loaded with RAM Block 1 guided missiles, replaces the 20 mm gun of Phalanx.
哈哈哈，我就知道你會犯這種錯誤，搞不清楚狀況
誰犯錯啊？基本上如果我是錯的，那Raytheon的說法也就是錯的
對啦對啦，你講的都對啦，比RAM的製造廠商說的還對啦
引用:
|
作者ewings
RAM叫做低成本？更是錯誤！
美國99年會計年度採購RAM，平均單價是44萬4千美元
而美軍採購標準一型飛彈，單價還低於RAM，只有40萬兩千五百美元
用RAM攔截3M80，發射出去的RAM還比3M80貴勒
一個21連裝Mk49發射器上裝填的RAM還比張騫號上整艘船上裝填的所有SM1還貴勒！
這叫低成本？見鬼！！
最好是RAM是這種低成本，只好裝在發射架的東西拉
如果垂直發射的標準二型有辦法攔截超音速反艦飛彈，幹嘛還要花兩枚到三枚總價89∼130萬美元的RAM去攔截，就是SM2攔不到才會用RAM來攔，而且三枚RAM還比一枚SM2還貴
如果SM2能有效攔截，那美國幹麻花上整整13年來研發RAM系統？
|
http://www.mnd.gov.tw/publication/s...spx?TopicID=679
「雷姆」計畫是為了提供艦艇一種有效、低成本、輕型、快速反應的自衛系統而設計，更新艦艇對來襲攻船飛彈的交戰能力，至目前為止已發展以下幾種型式
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/ram.htm
RAM is a joint United States and German venture to design an effective, low cost, lightweight quick-reaction, self-defense system which will increase the survivability of otherwise undefended ships.http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib...es/wep-ram.html
Features: The RIM-116 RAM is designed as an all-weather, high-firepower, low-cost, self-defense system against anti-ship cruise missiles and other asymmetric threats.
http://navysite.de/launcher/ram.htm與
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...nitions/ram.htm
Description:
The RAM program is designed to provide surface ships with an effective, low-cost, lightweight, self-defense system which will provide an improved capability to engage and defeat incoming antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs).
誰犯錯啊？基本上如果我說RAM低成本是錯的，那國防部、fas.org、globalsecurity.org的說法也就是錯的，都在睜眼說瞎話
對啦對啦，你講的都對啦，比國防部、fas.org、globalsecurity.org說的還對啦
你要拿已服役數十年的標準飛彈與才服役十數年的RAM來亂算成本，隨便你啦
你要拿不同國家的裝備用同一種幣值來計算製造成本，拿雞腿比爛爬，隨你啦
基本上你算的成本才是對的，美國海軍都亂算啦
野雞軍武專家說的才是最正確的啦
