True, but with a maximum range of 80km, I would expect effective range to be at least 30km for incoming anti-ship missiles which have limited scope to manoeuvre once within radar horizon range.You are comparing apples and oranges using parabolic trajectory values to derive range does not give an effective range for AA engagements. Curvature of the earth comes into play, target height comes into play and as the HVP is not powered in flight it's ability to be guided drops with loss of kinetic energy,
A tank gun round needs kinetic energy to penetrate armour and has to be designed for this. That is most certainly not the case regarding delicate missiles or aircraft.A Rheinmetall Rh-120 smooth bore tank gun has a MV of 1,700m/s (~Mach 5 at sea level) and an EFFECTIVE range of 8,000m so your super duper HVP will perform in a similar ballistic manner assuming it can reach the same MV given the underlying gun is rifled
The drop in rate of fire for HVP projectiles isn't directly due to barrel wear, depsite what you think. It's due to the need for the barrel to cool down after a launch, which is to prevent the barrel from overheating. In any case, barrels can be redesigned with better materials, which have already been developed for railgun tech.Barrel wear is an issue otherwise there's no reason for the rate of fire to drop using HVP munitions, the gun's mechanism is the same so the only reason for rate of fire drop is to preserve the barrel, As a barrel wears the gun's ability to fire accurately and consistently diminishes, using differing munitions changes the wear rate so I am sure the lovely arms sales man will suggest a full load out of 'superior' shells at 35x the unit cost just so that the poor sailor doesn't have to worry.
And just think about the costs involved. An unguided $1K shell being replaced by a guided $35K version which is 35x more expensive. That is peanuts in the context of incoming $1M anti-ship missiles fired from a Frigate which costs $250M.
It's still worth firing 10 guided shells (worth $0.35M) against an incoming $1M missile.
You're getting confused.Once the 8 SSMs on a Type 54A is expended (8 is a lot less than 32) the 76mm becomes it's only means of anti-surface self defence.
Who said anything about the Main Gun foregoing its anti-surface role? It can always go back to firing standard rounds if need be.
You're getting confused again.Your premise is that the Type 54A doesn't have enough VLS cells and CWIS backup for AA defence so it needs to mess around with a perfectly good medium calibre gun so it can fire shells that cost 2 orders of magnitude more to augment it, and that's a good thing!
Who said anything about the current Type-54A not having enough VLS or CIWS for its mission?
What I'm saying is that guided anti-air HVP projectiles look to be very promising in terms of being much better than the HQ-16.
They will be a lot cheaper, more can be definitely carried, and should have enough range to potentially replace the HQ-16 entirely.
But of course, they actually have to develop a working version first and test it out.