Talk:AK-630

Mistake in descripton
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 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

— 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)

Quality of sources and lots of questionable content.
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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on AK-630. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121231142441/http://www.arms-expo.ru:80/050053048049124050053056057.html to http://www.arms-expo.ru/050053048049124050053056057.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824231752/http://www.tulamash.ru:80/en/prod_ak630m.htm to http://www.tulamash.ru/en/prod_ak630m.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425194746/http://www.arms-expo.ru/049055052048124050054057054.html to http://www.arms-expo.ru/049055052048124050054057054.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824231752/http://www.tulamash.ru:80/en/prod_ak630m.htm to http://www.tulamash.ru/en/prod_ak630m.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414170146/http://www.arms-expo.ru:80/site.xp/050053048049124050053056057.html to http://www.arms-expo.ru/site.xp/050053048049124050053056057.html

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

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

comparison
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Coastal based AK-603.jpg

Operational history
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)