PLAN close in weapon

[tphuang]

so, I was browsing through Chinese bbs after a long day and found some interesting section comparing the main guns used on PLAN vs ROCN. It was specifically about AK-176M vs Otobreda 76 mm.

one of the posters who previously made a lot of revelations about Type 730 CIWS also commented on this, I thought it was sort of interesting.

当初考察OTO76的时候是和单100比的,最后单100是被AK176比下去了!

任何东西都得考虑自身的技术特点,不要盲目引进.
当初OTO76不如单100的自动化 水平高，但是事实证明这个自动化害人不浅，况且当时的水平，100毫米实现制导弹药比较容易。054上的单100在简化了40%以上的传感器后，其高速射击的稳定性还是不可靠的。
空谈射击精度，虽然OTO76的射击精度三者最高，但是连发射击的精度都是扯蛋，然而射速和初速的优势对于需要反导射击的我们来说就显得格外重要。另外AK176在经过我国的改进后，更换弹种的时间比OTO76快了很多。
弹种不多，可以研制。精度不够可以优化。火炮不是高科技……
最后也提供个建议给楼主所贴文章的作者，不懂就要学，自己不懂写点扯蛋文章出来就太不厚道了

basically, he said several points,
1. they originally compared oto 76 with the 100 mm naval gun to see which one was better to import and they picked 100 mm one and AK-176 turned out to have even more advantages.
2. at that time, OTO-76 did not have the automation level of 100 mm gun. at that time, it was also easier for China to develop guided munitions for 100 mm (I guess because it's bigger?). And after 054's 100 mm was simplified by over 40% in sensors, it's high speed shooting's reliability is not good
As for purely the accuracy, OTO-76 is better than the other two, but consecutive shot accuracy is garbage. Also, firing speed and initial speed is extremely important for China since it has anti-missile need, that's where AK-176M has serious advantage. After china improved on AK-176M, it is much faster at replacing rounds than OTO-76.
if there are not enough type of munition, you can develop more. As for accuracy, it can also be improved.

OTO76的弹,各位看官去查查,1982年,它有什么弹弹可用,它的速度又是多少?
对于防空型中口径火炮来说自动转换弹种是个关键,在经过中国人的改进后AK176可以实现无间隔转换,而OTO76是明显有差距的.
炮的差距不是炮本身,是其设计思路适合不适合我们.

you can check in 1982, what kind of munition was used on OTO-76 and what it's speed was. As for AD medium diameter main gun, auto reload is important, the improve AK-176 can achieve reload in no time, whereas OTO-76 is behind here. It's not that OTO-76 is bad, but rather it's design doesn't fit PLAN.

另外明确的说,中国的单100与法国的单100相比,就相当于法国从单100MK1到单100MK2的改进.单100的技术完全可以用在单130上,或者在此基础可以发展先进的弹药管理系统.
中国搞单76是在1992年到1994年间开始.改进了AK176后,根本没有必要再回头去OTO看他的超速76.貌似初速OTO76也就920米/秒. 而AK176达到980米/秒,5000米的飞行时间后者比前者少了2.5秒.射速还快上10发多.对于拦截略海导弹的效果后者要有一点优势,至于新弹嘛,中国人自己搞地.
另外媒体给出的精度数据只是单发1000米密集度,在60-90发的连发射速时,两者没有差别.最后说明AK176的弹药还比OTO多好些,这个在高威胁环境下可以对付更多的目标.

when you compare China's 100 mm with that of France, it's equivalent to going from French's 100 MK1 to MK2. 100 mm's technology can easily be used on 130 mm, and can use this to develop more advanced munition guidance system. China developing 76 was started around 92 to 94, after improving on AK-176, did not bother to look at the super rapid OTO-76. The initial speed of OTO-76 is 920 m/s, whereas AK-176 is 980 m/s, for over 5000 m, the flight time is 2.5 second shorter. Also AK-176 fires off 10 more rounds. This gives AK-176 certain advantages against anti-ship missile, as for new munition, China is developing it's own.
Also, the figure given for accuracy is only for single round 1000 m. When firing 60 to 90 consecutive shots, there is no difference. Also, AK-176's munition is better than OTO, as it can better defend against multiple targets in high threat environment.

 

[tphuang]

also found an analysis of China's large diameter naval gun development, although in Chinese, I will try to translate later.

薛狍
　　舰载武器２００７．０５

　　大口径舰炮通常指１２７毫米以上口径的舰炮。二战后由于航空武器的发展和导弹武器的出现，大口径火炮舰炮的发展进入了一个低潮。舰炮变成了以导弹为主的水面舰艇的辅助武器。装舰数量大幅度减少，通常各国主力舰艇只装备１～２座大口径的火炮。
　　我国舰炮研制工作的起步较晚。上世纪六十年代我国在引进苏联技术的基础上，研制我们的第一代双１３０毫米舰炮。九十年代中期我国引进了现代驱逐舰，其上的新双１３０作为附属项目被一并引进。目前随着我国海军现代化水平的提高，我们新一代大型驱逐舰呼之欲出，而选什么样的主炮做为其主炮就成为我们要关注的话题。
早在１９５６年我们引进＂四大金刚＂的时候，我们就开始了我们第一代的驱逐舰研制计划。我们第一代驱逐舰的蓝本是前苏联柯特林级驱逐舰，其上的双１３０毫米舰炮成为了我们第一代驱逐舰主炮的备选。
　　双１３０毫米舰炮是上世纪五十年代，根据在夏伯阳和斯维尔德洛夫级巡洋舰上的５６倍口径的１００毫米舰炮改进而成。在改进过程中，还吸取了Ｍ－４８型１３０毫米加农炮和空军１３０毫米高射炮的一些特点。其炮身为活动身管式，身管长５８倍口径，采用半自动横楔式炮闩，节制杆式制退机和气压式复进机。设有半自动装填机构。炮塔长８．５米，宽５．５米，高５米，炮塔为三向稳定。炮塔内有中央扬弹设备，炮塔后边有网眼式药筒收集箱。炮塔的右前方装有＂蛋杯＂火控雷达，左前方为光学观察指挥塔，其中设有炮长座位。
双１３０毫米舰炮的引进仿制工作在上世纪六十年代初展开。国内组织７１３所和第一重型机械厂在苏方提供的部分技术图纸的基础上对其进行仿制，由于当时我们的０５１大型驱逐舰还在计划之中，所以将其作为海岸炮来使用。经过几年的努力于１９６７年正式定型，命名为６６式双１３０海岸炮。在６６式双１３０毫米岸炮定型后，为了配合０５１型驱逐舰的研制，随即展开了双１３０毫米舰炮的研制，该炮采用了数字指挥仪，取消了炮塔右前方的火控雷达，并实现了自动装填。１９７５年完成了陆上实验，并于１９７６年设计定型命名为７６式双１３０毫米舰炮。
　　主要性能
　　射速　３４发／分
　　初速　９００米／秒
　　弹丸重　３３．４公斤
　　最大射程　２７．７公里（８０年后期开发了１３０底排弹药，射程增加到了３８公里）
　　配备弹种　榴弹、半穿甲弹
　　可以说，该型舰炮在上世纪六十年代属于较先进水平，３５００吨左右的柯特林级驱逐舰装备两座双１３０毫米舰炮，当时这样的火力是相当不错的。但是我国０５１型驱逐舰大量服役已经到了上世纪八十年代，其供弹系统已经落后于同时代的西方１２７毫米舰炮，而且体积和重量过大，已经不能跟上舰炮的发展潮流。
◆ＡＫ１３０型双１３０毫米舰炮

　　上世纪九十年代中期，我国和俄罗斯达成了引进现代级导弹驱逐舰的协议。分别于１９９８年和２００６年两批引进了四艘现代级导弹驱逐舰。在引进现代级的同时，ＡＫ１３０型双１３０毫米舰炮用弹药的国产化项目随之展开。
　　ＡＫ１３０毫米舰炮是前苏联第三代１３０毫米舰炮，其较前一代双１３０舰炮的不同之处就是强调了双１３０毫米舰炮的防空作用，将射速提高到了６０发／分（持续射速３０发／分）。
　　为了达到高初速，ＡＫ１３０使用了和前一代双１３０舰炮不同的整装式弹药，为了避免尺寸过大引起的供弹系统设计困难，将炮弹整体长度缩短。该炮炮管长５４倍口径，由于比７６式双１３０舰炮的断一些，所以其初速降到８７５米／秒。为了延长身管寿命，身管配用了水冷冷却系统。炮塔呈半球型，直径５米、高３．５米，全重９８吨。在炮塔右侧凸型结构上配备激光测距装置。
　　主要性能
　　射速　　　　　　３０－６０发／分
　　初速　　　　　　８７５米／秒
　　弹丸重　　　　　３３．４公斤
　　最大射程　　　　２９公里
◆新单１３０毫米舰炮

　　从２００２年开始，外界就甚传我们正在研制新型单管１３０毫米舰炮。不过到目前为止还没有对该炮较详细的描述。在这里笔者只能通过自己的经验为大家描绘下该炮的大致轮廓。
　　首先，我们先来看下其他国家的１２７／１３０毫米舰炮。目前世界其他国家在研或装备的１３０／１２７毫米舰炮有美国ＭＫ４５系列舰炮、意大利ＯＴＯ单管１２７毫米舰炮、和俄罗斯Ａ－１９２Ｅ型１３０毫米舰炮。

　　型号　　　　　　　　　　　炮重　　射速　　　　射程　　　　　　弹重
俄罗斯Ａ－１９２Ｅ型　　　　２８吨　３０发／分　２９公里　　　３３．４公斤
意大利奥托１２７毫米舰炮　　２２吨　３５发／分　２３公里　　　３３．１公斤
美国ＭＫ４５－４型　　　　　２６吨　２０发／分　２７．５公里　３３．１公斤

　　通过上表可以看出世界新型１２７／１３０毫米炮都向紧凑化、轻型化的方向发展。火炮射速在２０－３０发／分、射程在３０公里内、全炮重量不超过３０吨、并普遍配备了低可探测型炮塔。
　　我国目前装备有两种１３０毫米舰炮，对于１３０毫米火炮的设计和使用经验极其丰富，所以研制一型新的１３０口径火炮并不是问题。然而对于舰炮来说复杂的不是火炮，而是它的供弹、弹药管理系统，海上作战的环境决定了，舰炮的供弹、弹药管理系统必须高度可靠，即使出了问题也方便排除，而且还得保证高射速。世界主要１２７／１３０毫米舰炮都实现了供弹、选弹、弹药管理、引信测合、故障排除的机电自动化，而我们却只有７６式双１３０的机械式供弹系统的设计经验。所以如何射击一套合理的供弹系统就成为我们研制新１３０毫米舰炮的难点所在。先进舰炮供弹系统的设计经验，目前国内只有单管１００毫米舰炮可以借鉴。而单管１００毫米舰炮的射速达到９０发／分，如果把它借鉴到一套射速只有３０发／分的单１３０毫米舰炮上恐怕不是很容易的事。如果借鉴单管１００毫米舰炮的技术不合适的话，我们只能像Ａ－１９２Ｅ一样继承ＡＫ１３０型的供弹系统，将其简化。
结合多方面的因素后，对我国新１３０毫米舰炮性能做如下推测：
　　炮重３０吨左右、射程３０发／分、射程２９公里，外形采用类似我们双１００毫米舰炮炮塔的低可探测炮塔。可以进行多弹种的自动选择、转换弹种时间不超过１０秒。
◆１３０毫米舰炮制导弹药

　　目前１３０／１２７毫米舰炮的射程只有３０公里对岸、对海攻击能力均显不足。所以目前普遍的做法就是采用增程和制导手段来提高其打击能力。
　　目前的增程手段有减阻增程、火箭增程、次口径增程、和滑翔增程四种。火箭增程的主要途径是减少装药增加火箭发动机，可以增程２８％，但是弹丸飞行散步大，必要时候必须为弹丸进一步配备制导装置。减阻增程使用流线型弹体等手段可以增程３０％－５０％，而且不影响精度。次口径增程采用脱壳技术，一般增加４０％以上的射程。滑翔增程技术是在弹体上安装弹翼等设备，然后将炮弹打倒一个很高的高度上然后弹翼张开，进行滑翔。
　　舰炮目前由于自动装弹机结构的限制，如果增加弹丸长度的话，会影响装填速度。而且１３０毫米炮弹体空间有限，如果使用火箭增程或滑翔增程的话，势必影响弹丸威力。所以我们考虑在１３０毫米炮上使用增程技术的话，要尽量避免炮弹几何尺寸的大幅度变化，尽量保证弹丸的威力，所以可以采用减阻增程和次口径增程。我国为１３０舰炮设计的底排弹将射程增加到３８公里，脱壳榴弹（口径减小到１０５毫米）射程则增加到４０公里以上。
　　为１３０毫米舰炮配备制导弹药也是提高１３０毫米舰炮打击能力的一个重要部分。目前的精确制导弹药主要包括末制导弹药、末敏弹和ＧＰＳ修正弹药。目前末敏弹战斗部只在１５５毫米炮弹上得到了应用，以为ＥＦＰ战斗部要求药罩直径达到一定的程度，否则其威力达不到要求。ＧＰＳ惯性修正弹药一般是与其他制导手段结合使用。所以适合１３０毫米舰炮的只有某制导炮弹了。目前我国已经在１５２毫米口径研制了半主动激光制导弹药和末敏弹，但是在１３０毫米炮上应用还是有不小的难度。
　　一、制导设备和自动驾驶仪集成在口径更小的１３０毫米炮弹上难度较大。
　　二、１３０舰炮的初速达到９００米／秒左右，而陆炮发射的末制导弹药初速在５００米／秒左右，而且过载系数１３０毫米舰炮达到１５２毫米火炮的１５０％。
　　西方国家的做法是研制半主动激光制导滑翔增程弹来满足其对海对陆打击得需要。美国＂神射手＂激光制导炮弹长度１．６米为了能进行自动装填，将炮弹分成两个部分，先装填前半部分，然后再装填后半部分，并在膛内进行连接。其发射速度不大于５００米／秒，但是由于使用了滑翔增程达超过原来射程。具传我国为１３０毫米舰炮研制了激光制导炮弹。
　　如果配备了激光制导炮弹，那么就得相应的配备激光指示器。目前主要的手段有：单兵激光指示器一般用来为对岸攻击的军舰做目标指示；舰载目标指示器，可以进行能对海／陆目标进行照射（又于视场的原因，只能在视踞内使用，作用距离不超过２０公里）；机载目标指示器，可以装在直升机上，可以对远距离海上／陆上目标进行照射。激光制导有很大的局限性，目前红外／电视制导设备完全可以集成到１５５口径的弹药里，如果进一步努力将其集成到１３０毫米毫米的弹药里，我们就可以开发出新一代的末制导炮弹。
◆未来的１５５毫米舰炮

　　目前西方国家都开展了１５５毫米舰炮的研制，除美国的先进１５５毫米火炮系统外，其他国家都是照搬陆军同口径的自行火炮。
　　美国１５５毫米先进火炮系统与其说是舰炮，更不如说是一种另类的垂直发射系统。该炮为１５５毫米６０倍径火炮。配用红外制导的ＸＭ９８２型炮弹。整个炮身平常在甲板下。发射时，炮身伸出，垂直发射，射程可以达到６５－１８５公里从而是大口径舰炮具有与导弹接近的射程和命中率，但是费用只有导弹的１／１０。其全部模块集成在ＭＫ４１发射模块大小的空间内，并储存６００发左右的炮弹，射速达到了１２发／分。具外刊报道该炮在发射１００公里制导炮上达到了５－１０米的精度。由于其全套系统过于庞大，只能安装在大型舰艇上。
　　欧洲国家目前开展的１５５毫米炮上舰计划基本上都是各国的陆军１５５自行加榴炮的简单的移植。法国、德国、英国分别把其各自国内的１５５自行火炮的炮塔安装在小型舰艇上进行上舰评估。目前一般陆炮１５５都是采用分装弹药，实现１５５毫米炮自动装填就必须实现发射药的刚性化。所以这一类火炮射速并不能达到要求。如果这一类１５５火炮要装备的话，就必须在供弹系统上做文章。
　　结合我们目前的技术实力，如果我们研制１５５毫米舰炮的话，最好分步来进行。首先借鉴陆军１５５毫米加榴炮的基础上研制一种达到装舰要求的１５５毫米舰炮。待我国发射技术达到一定水平和装舰平台出现后，研制类似美国的１５５垂直发射火炮。
　　接下来，我们对未来可能出现的我国新１５５毫米舰炮做一个大胆的猜想。
　　１５５舰炮打击海面目标时，可用于击伤，击沉敌中小舰艇。
　　打击岸上目标时，摧毁在登陆作战中对我威胁较大的滩头，岸上火力点，并有为登陆部队上岸和向纵深推进提供火力支援的能力。并具有对敌纵深３０公里内的多种目标进行打击的能力。
　　目前我国在１５５毫米火炮的研制趋于成熟，通过引进１５５／４５倍火炮，研制１５５／５４倍火炮，我们研制达到可用程度的１５５舰炮的技术基础已经具备。目前我国５４倍１５５毫米加榴炮发射普通榴弹射程达到３５公里以上，发射底排弹可以达到５０公里，如果为其配备底排／火箭复合增程弹可以达到６０到７０公里的射程，而且该火炮已经实现了模块化装药。
　　然后就是为它配备合适的装弹供弹系统，笔者认为目前可以借鉴双１００毫米舰炮的供弹系统，利用其双扬弹机，双弹鼓的特点，一个用来储存提升弹丸，一个用来储存提升发射药。
　　总体性能指标
　　战斗全重３０吨
　　外廓尺寸宽３．６米
　　高度３．８米
　　回转半径３．３米
　　最大射程　　　普通榴弹　　３０公里
　　　　　　　　　底排弹　　　４０公里
　　　　　　　　　发射速度　　最大１５发／分
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　持续８发／分
　　目前我们已经在１５５毫米炮弹上开发了末制导＼末敏弹药，由于其火炮的通用，弹药也完全可以照搬到１５５毫米舰炮上来。
　　相信随着我国海军现代化建设的加快，和应付未来战争的需要。我国的新１３０毫米舰炮和１５５毫米舰炮很快就会出现我们的海军装备序列中。到那时，我们的海军作战能力将达到一个崭新的阶段。

basically mentions 155 mm and 127/130 mm guns in development.

 

[tphuang]

let's see if I can translate the above.

薛狍
　　舰载武器２００７．０５

　　大口径舰炮通常指１２７毫米以上口径的舰炮。二战后由于航空武器的发展和导弹武器的出现，大口径火炮舰 炮的发展进入了一个低潮。舰炮变成了以导弹为主的水面舰艇的辅助武器。装舰数量大幅度减少，通常各国主力舰 艇只装备１～２座大口径的火炮。
　　我国舰炮研制工作的起步较晚。上世纪六十年代我国在引进苏联技术的基础上，研制我们的第一代双１３０毫米舰炮。九十年代中期我国引进了现代驱逐舰，其上的新双１３０作为附属项目被一并引进。目前随着我国海军现代化水平的提高，我们新一代大型驱逐舰呼之欲出，而选什么样的主炮做为其主炮就成为我们要关注 的话题。
早在１９５６年我们引进＂四大金刚＂的时候，我们就开始了我们第一代的驱逐舰研制计划。我们第一代驱逐舰的 蓝本是前苏联柯特林级驱逐舰，其上的双１３０毫米舰炮成为了我们第一代驱逐舰主炮的备选。
　　双１３０毫米舰炮是上世纪五十年代，根据在夏伯阳和斯维尔德洛夫级巡洋舰上的５６倍口径的１００毫米舰炮改进而成。在改进过程中，还吸取了Ｍ－４８型１３０毫米加农炮和空军１３０毫米高射炮的一些特点。其炮身为活动身管式，身管长５８倍口径，采用半自动横楔式炮闩，节制杆式制退机和气压式复进机。设有半自动装填机构。炮塔长８．５米，宽５．５米，高５米，炮塔为三向稳定。炮塔内有中央扬弹设备，炮塔后边有网眼式药筒收集箱。炮塔的右前方装有＂蛋杯＂火控雷达，左前方为光学观察指挥塔，其中设有炮长座位。
双１３０毫米舰炮的引进仿制工作在上世纪六十年代初展开。国内组织７１３所和第一重型机械厂在苏方提供的部分技术图纸的基础上对其进行仿制，由于当时我们的０５１大型驱逐舰还在计划之中，所以将其作为海岸炮来使用。经过几年的努力于１９６７年正式定型，命名为６６式双１３０海岸炮。在６６式双１３０毫米岸炮定型后，为了配合０５１型驱逐舰的研制，随即展开了双１３０毫米舰炮的研制，该炮采用了数字指挥仪，取消了炮塔右前方的火控雷达，并实现了自动装填。１９７５年完成了陆上实验，并于１９７６年设计定型命名为７６式双１３０毫 米舰炮。
　　主要性能
　　射速　３４发／分
　　初速　９００米／秒
　　弹丸重　３３．４公斤
　　最大射程　２７．７公里（８０年后期开发了１３０底排弹药，射程增加到了３８公里）
　　配备弹种　榴弹、半穿甲弹
　　可以说，该型舰炮在上世纪六十年代属于较先进水平，３５００吨左右的柯特林级驱逐舰装备两座双１３０毫米舰炮，当时这样的火力是相当不错的。但是我国０５１型驱逐舰大量服役已经到了上世纪八十年代，其供弹系统已经落后于同时代的西方１２７毫米舰炮，而且体积和重量过大，已经不能跟上舰炮的发展潮流。

first talks about China's first attempt at a 130 mm naval gun, also known as Type 76, which was certified in 1976, but did not get equipped until 80s on Ludas. So, this would've been advanced for 60s, but unfortunately, it didn't get fielded until 80s. specs are 34 rounds/min, muzzle velocity of 900 m/s, munition weight is 33.4 kg and range is 27.7 (which later became 38 km)
uses shrapnel and Semi-Armor Piercing-High Penetration round.

◆ＡＫ１３０型双１３０毫米舰炮

　　上世纪九十年代中期，我国和俄罗斯达成了引进现代级导弹驱逐舰的协议。分别于１９９８年和２００６年两 批引进了四艘现代级导弹驱逐舰。在引进现代级的同时，ＡＫ１３０型双１３０毫米舰炮用弹药的国产化项目随之 展开。
　　ＡＫ１３０毫米舰炮是前苏联第三代１３０毫米舰炮，其较前一代双１３０舰炮的不同之处就是强调了双１３ ０毫米舰炮的防空作用，将射速提高到了６０发／分（持续射速３０发／分）。
　　为了达到高初速，ＡＫ１３０使用了和前一代双１３０舰炮不同的整装式弹药，为了避免尺寸过大引起的供弹系统设计困难，将炮弹整体长度缩短。该炮炮管长５４倍口径，由于比７６式双１３０舰炮的断一些，所以其初速降到８７５米／秒。为了延长身管寿命，身管配用了水冷冷却系统。炮塔呈半球型，直径５米、高３．５米，全重９８吨。在炮塔右侧凸型结构上配备激光测距装置。
　　主要性能
　　射速　　　　　　３０－６０发／分
　　初速　　　　　　８７５米／秒
　　弹丸重　　　　　３３．４公斤
　　最大射程　　　　２９公里

next talks about AK-130 that was imported as part of sov deal. It's performance include 30 to 60 rounds/min, 875 m/s muzzle velocity, 33.4 kg round and range of 29 km.

◆新单１３０毫米舰炮

　　从２００２年开始，外界就甚传我们正在研制新型单管１３０毫米舰炮。不过到目前为止还没有对该炮较详细 的描述。在这里笔者只能通过自己的经验为大家描绘下该炮的大致轮廓。
　　首先，我们先来看下其他国家的１２７／１３０毫米舰炮。目前世界其他国家在研或装备的１３０／１２７毫 米舰炮有美国ＭＫ４５系列舰炮、意大利ＯＴＯ单管１２７毫米舰炮、和俄罗斯Ａ－１９２Ｅ型１３ ０毫米舰炮。

　　型号　　　　　　　　　　　炮重　　射速　　　　射程　　　　　　弹重
俄罗斯Ａ－１９２Ｅ型　　　　２８吨　３０发／分　２９公里　　　３３．４公斤
意大利奥托１２７毫米舰炮　　２２吨　３５发／分　２３公里　　　３３．１公斤
美国ＭＫ４５－４型　　　　　２６吨　２０发／分　２７．５公里　３３．１公斤

next it talks about the new generation of single barrel 130 mm gun being developed, first it compares A-192E with OTO127 and MK45-4 to see how they compare with each other

　　通过上表可以看出世界新型１２７／１３０毫米炮都向紧凑化、轻型化的方向发展。火炮射速在２０－３０发 ／分、射程在３０公里内、全炮重量不超过３０吨、并普遍配备了低可探测型炮塔。

from about, it looks like 127/130 mm are all becoming lighter compared to previous 130 mm, looking at 20-30 rounds/min, range of 30 km, the gun weight is less than 30 ton.

　　我国目前装备有两种１３０毫米舰炮，对于１３０毫米火炮的设计和使用经验极其丰富，所以研制一型新的１３０口径火炮并不是问题。然而对于舰炮来说复杂的不是火炮，而是它的供弹、弹药管理系统，海上作战的环境决定了，舰炮的供弹、弹药管理系统必须高度可靠，即使出了问题也方便排除，而且还得保证高射速。世界主要１２７／１３０毫米舰炮都实现了供弹、选弹、弹药管理、引信测合、故障排除的机电自动化，而我们却只有７６式双１３０的机械式供弹系统的设计经验。所以如何射击一套合理的供弹系统就成为我们研制新１３０毫米舰炮的难点所在。先进舰炮供弹系统的设计经验，目前国内只有单管１００毫米舰炮可以借鉴。而单管１００毫米舰炮的射速达到９０发／分，如果把它借鉴到一套射速只有３０发／分的单１３０毫米舰炮上恐怕不是很容易的事。如果借鉴单管１００毫米舰炮的技术不合适的话，我们只能像Ａ－１９２Ｅ一样继承ＡＫ１３０型的供弹系统 ，将其简化。

talk about the difficulty in developing a new 130 mm gun since the only type 76 has been developed thus far, China can only use 100 mm naval gun as guidance for the new 130 mm. Since 100 mm can fire at 90 rounds/min, developing something firing at 30 rounds/min is not easy. If using single 100 mm naval gun's technology is not suitable, China would have to use AK-130 technology like A-192E.

结合多方面的因素后，对我国新１３０毫米舰炮性能做如下推测：
　　炮重３０吨左右、射程３０发／分、射程２９公里，外形采用类似我们双１００毫米舰炮炮塔的低可探测炮塔 。可以进行多弹种的自动选择、转换弹种时间不超过１０秒。

so the new 130 mm gun with probably need to achieve specs of 30 ton in gun weight, 30 rounds/min, range 29 km, exterior looking similar to type 79's gun mount. can choose from different rounds and reload in less than 10 second.

◆１３０毫米舰炮制导弹药
　　目前１３０／１２７毫米舰炮的射程只有３０公里对岸、对海攻击能力均显不足。所以目前普遍的做法就是采 用增程和制导手段来提高其打击能力。
　　目前的增程手段有减阻增程、火箭增程、次口径增程、和滑翔增程四种。火箭增程的主要途径是减少装药增加火箭发动机，可以增程２８％，但是弹丸飞行散步大，必要时候必须为弹丸进一步配备制导装置。减阻增程使用流线型弹体等手段可以增程３０％－５０％，而且不影响精度。次口径增程采用脱壳技术，一般增加４０％以上的射程。滑翔增程技术是在弹体上安装弹翼等设备，然后将炮弹打倒一个很高的高度上然后弹翼张开，进 行滑翔。

munition, of course, 130 mm rounds that only have 30 km range vs surface or sea target is not enough. If you want to increase range, you can decrease drag, use rocket, use glide method, secondary caliber. To increase through rocket you can increase size of rocket motor and decrease powder, increase by 28%. it goes through the methods...

　　舰炮目前由于自动装弹机结构的限制，如果增加弹丸长度的话，会影响装填速度。而且１３０毫米炮弹体空间有限，如果使用火箭增程或滑翔增程的话，势必影响弹丸威力。所以我们考虑在１３０毫米炮上使用增程技术的话，要尽量避免炮弹几何尺寸的大幅度变化，尽量保证弹丸的威力，所以可以采用减阻增程和次口径增程。我国为１３０舰炮设计的底排弹将射程增加到３８公里，脱壳榴弹（口径减小到１０５毫米）射程则增加到４ ０公里以上。

use 105 mm round can increase range to 40 km.

　　为１３０毫米舰炮配备制导弹药也是提高１３０毫米舰炮打击能力的一个重要部分。目前的精确制导弹药主要包括末制导弹药、末敏弹和ＧＰＳ修正弹药。目前末敏弹战斗部只在１５５毫米炮弹上得到了应用，以为ＥＦＰ战斗部要求药罩直径达到一定的程度，否则其威力达不到要求。ＧＰＳ惯性修正弹药一般是与其他制导手段结合使用。所以适合１３０毫米舰炮的只有某制导炮弹了。目前我国已经在１５２毫米口径研制了半主动激光制导弹药和末敏弹，但是在１３０毫米炮上应用还是有不小的难度。

goes through the different type of rounds that can be developed.

　　一、制导设备和自动驾驶仪集成在口径更小的１３０毫米炮弹上难度较大。
　　二、１３０舰炮的初速达到９００米／秒左右，而陆炮发射的末制导弹药初速在５００米／秒左右，而且过载 系数１３０毫米舰炮达到１５２毫米火炮的１５０％。
　　西方国家的做法是研制半主动激光制导滑翔增程弹来满足其对海对陆打击得需要。美国＂神射手＂激光制导炮弹长度１．６米为了能进行自动装填，将炮弹分成两个部分，先装填前半部分，然后再装填后半部分，并在膛内进行连接。其发射速度不大于５００米／秒，但是由于使用了滑翔增程达超过原来射程。具传我国为１３０毫米舰炮 研制了激光制导炮弹。
　　如果配备了激光制导炮弹，那么就得相应的配备激光指示器。目前主要的手段有：单兵激光指示器一般用来为对岸攻击的军舰做目标指示；舰载目标指示器，可以进行能对海／陆目标进行照射（又于视场的原因，只能在视踞内使用，作用距离不超过２０公里）；机载目标指示器，可以装在直升机上，可以对远距离海上／陆上目标进行照射。激光制导有很大的局限性，目前红外／电视制导设备完全可以集成到１５５口径的弹药里，如果进一步努力将其集成到１３０毫米毫米的弹药里，我们就可以开发出新一代的末制导炮弹。

talks about achieving 900 m/s muzzle speed compared to land based gun of 500 m/s. It talks abot trying to use laser guidance in the 130 mm round. At current time, infrared guidance and TV guidance can be fitted on 155 mm rounds, but putting it in 130 mm requires further development.

◆未来的１５５毫米舰炮

　　目前西方国家都开展了１５５毫米舰炮的研制，除美国的先进１５５毫米火炮系统外，其他国家都是照搬陆军 同口径的自行火炮。
　　美国１５５毫米先进火炮系统与其说是舰炮，更不如说是一种另类的垂直发射系统。该炮为１５５毫米６０倍径火炮。配用红外制导的ＸＭ９８２型炮弹。整个炮身平常在甲板下。发射时，炮身伸出，垂直发射，射程可以达到６５－１８５公里从而是大口径舰炮具有与导弹接近的射程和命中率，但是费用只有导弹的１／１０。其全部模块集成在ＭＫ４１发射模块大小的空间内，并储存６００发左右的炮弹，射速达到了１２发／分。具外刊报道该炮在发射１００公里制导炮上达到了５－１０米的精度。由于其全套系统过于庞大，只能安装在大型舰 艇上。
　　欧洲国家目前开展的１５５毫米炮上舰计划基本上都是各国的陆军１５５自行加榴炮的简单的移植。法国、德国、英国分别把其各自国内的１５５自行火炮的炮塔安装在小型舰艇上进行上舰评估。目前一般陆炮１５５都是采用分装弹药，实现１５５毫米炮自动装填就必须实现发射药的刚性化。所以这一类火炮射速并不能达到要求。如果这一类１５５火炮要装备的话，就必须在供弹系统上做文章。

talks about western development of 155 mm naval gun.

　　结合我们目前的技术实力，如果我们研制１５５毫米舰炮的话，最好分步来进行。首先借鉴陆军１５５毫米加 榴炮的基础上研制一种达到装舰要求的１５５毫米舰炮。待我国发射技术达到一定水平和装舰平台出现后，研制类 似美国的１５５垂直发射火炮。

Chinese development could use the 155 mm howitzer's round as the basis.

　　接下来，我们对未来可能出现的我国新１５５毫米舰炮做一个大胆的猜想。
　　１５５舰炮打击海面目标时，可用于击伤，击沉敌中小舰艇。
　　打击岸上目标时，摧毁在登陆作战中对我威胁较大的滩头，岸上火力点，并有为登陆部队上岸和向纵深推进提 供火力支援的能力。并具有对敌纵深３０公里内的多种目标进行打击的能力。
　　目前我国在１５５毫米火炮的研制趋于成熟，通过引进１５５／４５倍火炮，研制１５５／５４倍火炮，我们研制达到可用程度的１５５舰炮的技术基础已经具备。目前我国５４倍１５５毫米加榴炮发射普通榴弹射程达到３５公里以上，发射底排弹可以达到５０公里，如果为其配备底排／火箭复合增程弹可以达到６０到７０公里的射程 ，而且该火炮已经实现了模块化装药。
　　然后就是为它配备合适的装弹供弹系统，笔者认为目前可以借鉴双１００毫米舰炮的供弹系统，利用其双扬弹 机，双弹鼓的特点，一个用来储存提升弹丸，一个用来储存提升发射药。
　　总体性能指标
　　战斗全重３０吨
　　外廓尺寸宽３．６米
　　高度３．８米
　　回转半径３．３米
　　最大射程　　　普通榴弹　　３０公里
　　　　　　　　　底排弹　　　４０公里
　　　　　　　　　发射速度　　最大１５发／分
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　持续８发／分
　　目前我们已经在１５５毫米炮弹上开发了末制导＼末敏弹药，由于其火炮的通用，弹药也完全可以照搬到１５ ５毫米舰炮上来。
　　相信随着我国海军现代化建设的加快，和应付未来战争的需要。我国的新１３０毫米舰炮和１５５毫米舰炮很 快就会出现我们的海军装备序列中。到那时，我们的海军作战能力将达到一个崭新的阶段。

further on are ust guesses on possible performance and such.

 

[Kongo]

so, I was browsing through Chinese bbs after a long day and found some interesting section comparing the main guns used on PLAN vs ROCN. It was specifically about AK-176M vs Otobreda 76 mm.

one of the posters who previously made a lot of revelations about Type 730 CIWS also commented on this, I thought it was sort of interesting.


basically, he said several points,
1. they originally compared oto 76 with the 100 mm naval gun to see which one was better to import and they picked 100 mm one and AK-176 turned out to have even more advantages.
2. at that time, OTO-76 did not have the automation level of 100 mm gun. at that time, it was also easier for China to develop guided munitions for 100 mm (I guess because it's bigger?). And after 054's 100 mm was simplified by over 40% in sensors, it's high speed shooting's reliability is not good
As for purely the accuracy, OTO-76 is better than the other two, but consecutive shot accuracy is garbage. Also, firing speed and initial speed is extremely important for China since it has anti-missile need, that's where AK-176M has serious advantage. After china improved on AK-176M, it is much faster at replacing rounds than OTO-76.
if there are not enough type of munition, you can develop more. As for accuracy, it can also be improved.


you can check in 1982, what kind of munition was used on OTO-76 and what it's speed was. As for AD medium diameter main gun, auto reload is important, the improve AK-176 can achieve reload in no time, whereas OTO-76 is behind here. It's not that OTO-76 is bad, but rather it's design doesn't fit PLAN.

when you compare China's 100 mm with that of France, it's equivalent to going from French's 100 MK1 to MK2. 100 mm's technology can easily be used on 130 mm, and can use this to develop more advanced munition guidance system. China developing 76 was started around 92 to 94, after improving on AK-176, did not bother to look at the super rapid OTO-76. The initial speed of OTO-76 is 920 m/s, whereas AK-176 is 980 m/s, for over 5000 m, the flight time is 2.5 second shorter. Also AK-176 fires off 10 more rounds. This gives AK-176 certain advantages against anti-ship missile, as for new munition, China is developing it's own.
Also, the figure given for accuracy is only for single round 1000 m. When firing 60 to 90 consecutive shots, there is no difference. Also, AK-176's munition is better than OTO, as it can better defend against multiple targets in high threat environment.

I was just reading your blog entry and I wanted to reply there but I didn't have a gmail account. Your assessment that the Super Rapid is overratede doesn't hold water. I also don't understand how you can draw a conclusion on SR performance when what you are quoting compares the performance of the Compact version. While the claimed ROF of the 76SR is 120 rnds/min, the SR76 achieved 139 rnds/min during trials, which would put the ROF as better, if not the same as the AK-176, which also has a claimed 120 rnds/min ROF. The 76SR also has a higher traverse (60 vs 35 deg/s) and elevation rate (35 vs 30 deg/s) than the AK-176, very important in the AAW role against multiple targets and against tracking maneuvering targets. Acceleration is 72deg/ sec^2 for both elevation and traverse. The SR is also highly accurate with round dispersion rates better than many CIWS systems, with standard deviation figures of less than 0.3 mrad at 1000 m per burst of 10 rounds fired at maximum rate. Muzzle velocity wise, the Ammunition Reduced Time-of-Flight (ART) round already negates the main advantage the AK-176 has, with muzzle velocity of ART series rounds in excess of M3. Most importantly, the 76SR already has the DART guided anti-air munition designed for it under the DAVIDE system, which was designed to satisfy the specifications calling for a minimum keep-out range of 1nm (1.6km) - to prevent any missile debris coming inbound - and a kill probability exceeding 90% against a manoeuvrable, sea-skimming, supersonic anti-ship missile threat. If the AK-176 was a capable CIWS, why is there a need for the Type 730? On the other hand, the 76SR is the designated CIWS for the Italian navy.

 

[tphuang]

I was just reading your blog entry and I wanted to reply there but I didn't have a gmail account. Your assessment that the Super Rapid is overratede doesn't hold water.

not overrated, but rather AK-176M has numerous advantages.

I also don't understand how you can draw a conclusion on SR performance when what you are quoting compares the performance of the Compact version. While the claimed ROF of the 76SR is 120 rnds/min, the SR76 achieved 139 rnds/min during trials, which would put the ROF as better, if not the same as the AK-176, which also has a claimed 120 rnds/min ROF.

for AK-176M, it's actually 131 rnd/min. And SR76 may go 139 in trial, but in practice, it's not going to go that high.

The 76SR also has a higher traverse (60 vs 35 deg/s) and elevation rate (35 vs 30 deg/s) than the AK-176, very important in the AAW role against multiple targets and against tracking maneuvering targets. Acceleration is 72deg/ sec^2 for both elevation and traverse.

I don't have figures for AK-176M, can't really comment on that.

The SR is also highly accurate with round dispersion rates better than many CIWS systems, with standard deviation figures of less than 0.3 mrad at 1000 m per burst of 10 rounds fired at maximum rate.

For the original AK-176, it was 0.8 mrad. Although with improved fire control and munition, I'm sure it's comparable to that. Also, the other thing i mentionned is that with single ammo, this makes a difference, but with consecutive firings and dispersions, the difference is not that much.

Muzzle velocity wise, the Ammunition Reduced Time-of-Flight (ART) round already negates the main advantage the AK-176 has, with muzzle velocity of ART series rounds in excess of M3. Most importantly, the 76SR already has the DART guided anti-air munition designed for it under the DAVIDE system, which was designed to satisfy the specifications calling for a minimum keep-out range of 1nm (1.6km) - to prevent any missile debris coming inbound - and a kill probability exceeding 90% against a manoeuvrable, sea-skimming, supersonic anti-ship missile threat.

so you are going to munitions now, as I said in my blog, guided munitions can be developed. You don't know what kind of munitions China use on its AK-176M, it's not the same as the Russian ones. Make no mistake, if China chose oto melara over 100 mm gun back in the days, it would be using its own projectiles right now, not Italian ones.
And the other factor that I forgot to mention is that AK-176 allows the storage of double the amount of ammo compared to oto melara.

If the AK-176 was a capable CIWS, why is there a need for the Type 730? On the other hand, the 76SR is the designated CIWS for the Italian navy.

That should show you how much higher PLAN's requirements are. Let's put it this way, Kashtan claims 96% accuracy against the target you mentionned, but PLAN considers it a piece of junk. Can AK-176 possibly handle 10 simultaneous supersonic targets?

 

[Kongo]

for AK-176M, it's actually 131 rnd/min.

Not according to here.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't have figures for AK-176M, can't really comment on that.

Has there been any upgrades to the traversing system?

For the original AK-176, it was 0.8 mrad. Although with improved fire control and munition, I'm sure it's comparable to that.

How can you be 'sure' when you have no info?

Also, the other thing i mentionned is that with single ammo, this makes a difference, but with consecutive firings and dispersions, the difference is not that much.

That is the claim made by somebody. Besides, the figure i gave is for a burst of 10 rounds. And the accuracy figures do not degrade just over a few firings. With water cooling, it is likely that the 76SR can maintain its accuracy for much longer.

so you are going to munitions now, as I said in my blog, guided munitions can be developed.

And guns can be further upgraded. Should we take some non-existent future upgrade of the 76SR and use it to compare with the AK-176M, and hence conclude that it is more effective?

You don't know what kind of munitions China use on its AK-176M, it's not the same as the Russian ones.

Yes, the PLAN may have some mystical shashoujiang round that nobody knows about. Maybe not even they themselves know about it. This is lame, everytime the PLAN comes up short in some area, the refrain becomes 'you don't know what the PLAN has'.

Make no mistake, if China chose oto melara over 100 mm gun back in the days, it would be using its own projectiles right now, not Italian ones.
And the other factor that I forgot to mention is that AK-176 allows the storage of double the amount of ammo compared to oto melara.

Nice, but with a dispersion of 0.8, (or even with some incremental improvements) that ammo capacity's likely to be needed.

That should show you how much higher PLAN's requirements are.

That logic only works if one has already arrived at the assumption that the AK-176 is as capable as the 76SR. Which is totally silly when what we are trying to do is determine whether the AK-176 is better than the 76SR.

 

[Kongo]

Let's put it this way, Kashtan claims 96% accuracy against the target you mentionned, but PLAN considers it a piece of junk. Can AK-176 possibly handle 10 simultaneous supersonic targets?

Just shows that Russia tends to exaggerate its claims. Or not provide the conditions under which those results are achievable. I can achieve 100% accuracy for any gun. Put the target in front of the barrel. Just shows how much one can trust figures for the AK-176.

 

[tphuang]

Not according to here.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

latest data is 120-131 for the fast mode

Has there been any upgrades to the traversing system?

not sure, but for the sake of argument, we can give the traversing system advantage to oto melara

How can you be 'sure' when you have no info?

That is the claim made by somebody. Besides, the figure i gave is for a burst of 10 rounds. And the accuracy figures do not degrade just over a few firings. With water cooling, it is likely that the 76SR can maintain its accuracy for much longer.

Not saying that the 10th round is not accurate, but rather with x number of rounds against y number of targets(the figure I think PLAN tested was far greater than 10), it was found that the performances were comparable.

And guns can be further upgraded. Should we take some non-existent future upgrade of the 76SR and use it to compare with the AK-176M, and hence conclude that it is more effective?

Yes, the PLAN may have some mystical shashoujiang round that nobody knows about. Maybe not even they themselves know about it. This is lame, everytime the PLAN comes up short in some area, the refrain becomes 'you don't know what the PLAN has'.

76 mm munitions can be fit into other 76 mm guns. We are comparing guns themselves, not the projectiles. Stuff like firing rate, muzzle velocity and as you brought up traversal figures cannot be upgraded as rapidly as putting in a new projectile. It's a projectile after all, you really think China can't develop a guided projectile to fit in later if it really wanted to?

Nice, but with a dispersion of 0.8, (or even with some incremental improvements) that ammo capacity's likely to be needed.

again, 0.8 was in the 80s with the original AK-176. These things improve over 20 years. But yeah, one way to counter less accuracy is definitely shooting more. After 10 ammos, oto melera might have a higher chance of bringing down two incoming missiles from the same direction. But after 50 ammos, is there still an advantage?

That logic only works if one has already arrived at the assumption that the AK-176 is as capable as the 76SR. Which is totally silly when what we are trying to do is determine whether the AK-176 is better than the 76SR.

do you think USN would use a oto 76 for its close in defense? Why would PLAN choose any other standards? A main naval gun can't match the AD capabilities of a modern multi-barrel CIWS. And of course, even advanced CIWS like Goalkeeper can't match RAM.

Just shows that Russia tends to exaggerate its claims. Or not provide the conditions under which those results are achievable. I can achieve 100% accuracy for any gun. Put the target in front of the barrel. Just shows how much one can trust figures for the AK-176.

Actually, the Russian figures were slightly bloated, but still reasonably close to that, although it's not as good as goalkeeper, that's for sure.
I actually meant oto melera handling 10 concurrent missiles there. That's basically what 2 Type 730 are expected to do.

 

[Kongo]

latest data is 120-131 for the fast mode

I've been trying to find such data without success.

Not saying that the 10th round is not accurate, but rather with x number of rounds against y number of targets(the figure I think PLAN tested was far greater than 10), it was found that the performances were comparable.

This claim is against the Compact. Has the PLAN tested the Super Rapid? And finally, this is still a claim made by an anonymous individual.

76 mm munitions can be fit into other 76 mm guns. We are comparing guns themselves, not the projectiles.

And yet the capability of a gun comes from its ammunition.

Stuff like firing rate, muzzle velocity and as you brought up traversal figures cannot be upgraded as rapidly as putting in a new projectile.

The 127mm/62 Mk54 mod 4 and the ERGM? Which entered service first?

It's a projectile after all, you really think China can't develop a guided projectile to fit in later if it really wanted to?

Has China developed a DART equivalent? Developing a guided round capable of sustaining the shock of 30,000Gs isn't trivial.

again, 0.8 was in the 80s with the original AK-176. These things improve over 20 years.

By how much? Somehow you are sure that it has improved to the same level as the 76SR.

But yeah, one way to counter less accuracy is definitely shooting more. After 10 ammos, oto melera might have a higher chance of bringing down two incoming missiles from the same direction. But after 50 ammos, is there still an advantage?

How do you know the accuracy is degraded that badly after just 50 rounds? What you are going on is totally based on the words of that unknown individual. There has been no other claim of such anywhere. Anyway, this point is made irrelevant with the DART.

do you think USN would use a oto 76 for its close in defense? Why would PLAN choose any other standards?

The 76mm and the 57mm was evaluated for as the next gen gun-based CIWS solution by the USN. The 57mm won out. That doesn't necessarily mean the 57mm performed better. Other factors like cost, ship impact may have played a factor. Compared to the 76SR, the 57mm has twice the ROF but half the explosive power per round, and also has lesser range.

A main naval gun can't match the AD capabilities of a modern multi-barrel CIWS. And of course, even advanced CIWS like Goalkeeper can't match RAM.

Your assumption is a fallacy. The 57mm is the gun based CIWS on the DDG-1000 and the LCS. Larger calibres are gaining favour jsut as China adopted the Type 730. The Phalanx and the Goalkeeper are still used because they are already bought, and in the case of the Phalanx, it is simply bolt-on and thus easily installed.

The 76SR was designed specifically as a CIWS for the ASMD role. That is its primary role, with anti-surface roles being a secondary role. Smaller calibre gives greater ROF, but larger calibre can utilise ABM, have longer ranges and use guided munitions.

I actually meant oto melera handling 10 concurrent missiles there. That's basically what 2 Type 730 are expected to do.

10? And which poster posted that requirement? What kind of targets? What's the separation between the targets? I have no idea how many targets the DAVIDE is expected to handle, but without the details, a simple number even if provided, is not very meaningful. What I can find is that each engagement with a DAVIDE equipped 76SR is not to take more than 5 rounds, and the keep out range is 2km. Try that with the Goalkeeper, AK-176M or Type 730. But I can find some info for the 76SR without the use of the DAVIDE and DART, utilising just the Dardo FCS and normal ammunition.

"OTO-Melara estimates that, combined with the Dardo FCS, the SR can begin engaging attacking missiles at about 6,600 yards (6,000 m), with the first rounds arriving on target at 6,000 yards (5,500 m). With these ranges, a single gun can deal with up to four subsonic sea-skimmer missiles, arriving simultaneously on courses 90 degrees apart, before any reaches 1,100 yards (1,000 m). "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[tphuang]

I've been trying to find such data without success.

February Issue of Kanwa. And also I think April Issue of Kanwa, with commentary from PN as part of accepting AK-176M with F-22P.
+ Richard Fisher's article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This claim is against the Compact. Has the PLAN tested the Super Rapid? And finally, this is still a claim made by an anonymous individual.

don't think so, but they tested it at the same time with 100 mm. Both sides are upgraded since. At that time, 76 mm had numerous advantages, but 100 mm fit PLAN requirements better. You can believe this person or not, this person works for 707 institute. And if you don't, that's fine. I'm presenting what I believe PLAN came up with their conclusions.

And yet the capability of a gun comes from its ammunition.
The 127mm/62 Mk54 mod 4 and the ERGM? Which entered service first?

Neither F-15 no F-22 can't shoot down an opposing plane either without missiles/gun, does that mean we can't compare F-22 and F-15 independent of missiles? Point is, you can put PL-2 on F-22 and AMRAAM on F-15, F-22 will probably loose, but it's still superior to F-15.

Has China developed a DART equivalent? Developing a guided round capable of sustaining the shock of 30,000Gs isn't trivial.

actually, we don't get much of anything regarding projectiles. I mean, you can see what they are giving out to export market, but that's it. Actually, I'm doing a research right now on their development of a Chinese AGS. It's said to be able to hit ships 300 km away. If that gets unveiled anytime soon, I think you would know the implications.

By how much? Somehow you are sure that it has improved to the same level as the 76SR.

if they can get Type 730 CIWS to achieve the accuracy of Goalkeeper. I think that having the belief they can improve AK-176 to a comparable level to Oto 76 mm is not that crazy.

How do you know the accuracy is degraded that badly after just 50 rounds? What you are going on is totally based on the words of that unknown individual. There has been no other claim of such anywhere. Anyway, this point is made irrelevant with the DART.

not that it degrade, but after 50 rounds, both side are going to shoot down the incoming missiles. Oto 76 might do it quicker, but that's where the additional storage + firing rate help.

The 76mm and the 57mm was evaluated for as the next gen gun-based CIWS solution by the USN. The 57mm won out. That doesn't necessarily mean the 57mm performed better. Other factors like cost, ship impact may have played a factor. Compared to the 76SR, the 57mm has twice the ROF but half the explosive power per round, and also has lesser range.

Your assumption is a fallacy. The 57mm is the gun based CIWS on the DDG-1000 and the LCS. Larger calibres are gaining favour jsut as China adopted the Type 730. The Phalanx and the Goalkeeper are still used because they are already bought, and in the case of the Phalanx, it is simply bolt-on and thus easily installed.

Right, that's exactly why most of the navies still use goalkeeper, phalanx and RAM, right? I'm sure the Koreans didn't know what they were doing on KDX-3. Or the Japanese with Atago class. And I'm sure the Brits didn't know what they were doing when they made provision for Phalanx on Type 45.

The 76SR was designed specifically as a CIWS for the ASMD role. That is its primary role, with anti-surface roles being a secondary role. Smaller calibre gives greater ROF, but larger calibre can utilise ABM, have longer ranges and use guided munitions.

I agree with that.

10? And which poster posted that requirement? What kind of targets? What's the separation between the targets? I have no idea how many targets the DAVIDE is expected to handle, but without the details, a simple number even if provided, is not very meaningful. What I can find is that each engagement with a DAVIDE equipped 76SR is not to take more than 5 rounds, and the keep out range is 2km. Try that with the Goalkeeper, AK-176M or Type 730. But I can find some info for the 76SR without the use of the DAVIDE and DART, utilising just the Dardo FCS and normal ammunition.

"OTO-Melara estimates that, combined with the Dardo FCS, the SR can begin engaging attacking missiles at about 6,600 yards (6,000 m), with the first rounds arriving on target at 6,000 yards (5,500 m). With these ranges, a single gun can deal with up to four subsonic sea-skimmer missiles, arriving simultaneously on courses 90 degrees apart, before any reaches 1,100 yards (1,000 m). "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

well, take a look at Goalkeeper's test results, Type 730 CIWS is suppose to exceed that in performance. I believe I mentionned they were supersonic sea-skimmers coming in pairs that are 90 degrees apart. Look, this is going nowhere. If you wish to end this, I will give you the last word. But if you want to continue, I will continue.

Basically, the advantages I stated for AK-176M was clear:
faster rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity, double ammo storage.
Your stated advantages were,
faster traversal speed, more accuracy + better rounds.

by continuing, it will simply be more of emphasizing one's advantages and downplay the disadvantages.