Shipbucket

I'm updating an old corvette design, and while I was replacing parts, I debated redoing the gun armament, which previously was one TAK-120, and 1 Breda twin "Fast-40". In the new scheme, I was debating replacing the TAK and Fast-40 mounts with an OTO-76 forward, and some CIWS mount aft, or simply two, OTO-76s, or maybe two Bofors 57mm mk 3 mounts. Since this is a 1990s design, I'm not sure if the 76mm DART would be available yet. Otherwise, how effective is the Bofors 57mm against missiles? Most of what I'm able to dig up online suggests there isn't a lot to choose from between the 76 and 57mm, though obviously, the 76mm is more effective vs surface targets. What is the board take on these two systems?

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

It depends on what you envision the gun being for.

The OTO 76 as it stands right now is pretty much a jack-of-all-trades weapon with adequate performance in the anti-ship, anti-aircraft and shore bombardment roles and even has a CIWS function (though I believe it requires special ammo for this). The Bofors 57mm has poor performance against large vessels but it's adequate against air threats and it also has a CIWS function, with or without specialized ammo. Moreover it's very good against numerous small threats (i.e., small boats) which is why the USN put it on the LCS. Either way I think more than one of either is overkill for a corvette (or any vessel, really) and either system isn't going to be as good in the CIWS role as dedicated systems, particularly RAM.

With Klag's comments in mind, what about a Mistral launcher aft and a 76mm gun forward? That would give you good AA capabilities, while retaining shore bombardment and anti-ship abilities. You'd be lacking in CIWS though.

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw

I already have both RAM and ESSM, so it's not a matter of one or the other. Essentially, the design is a scaled up FAC, with air defense included. The longer hull allows for more systems, so there was a spot available for a second gun or CIWS. It sounds like there could be a place for both systems, using the 76mm for shore targets, and larger vessels, that don't quite merit a Harpoon, while I can use the 57mm to engage small boats and anything that has leaked through the missile based defenses.

I had a setback with losing my work, so I have to redo everything, but hopefully won't take more than a couple of days to reapply the updates.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

Two different guns means two different logistical supply trains, keep in mind.

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw

There is that. I could just upgrade the Breda 40mms to the newer, dual feed mount as well, which are more firmly in CIWS territory, and would take care of the supply chain issue. For small boats, twin 40s should be as effective as a single 57mm, mostly a matter of software for the targeting system.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

RAM, ESSM, and then you're concerned about which medium-caliber gun to fit? And whether there should be more than one? Or three? On a corvette?

I invite a comparison to the AAW systems on a Perry of probably double the displacement, and then beg for some common sense to take over.

I was under the working assumption he had a frigate-sized corvette, and called it a corvette for political or historical reasons. You do raise a good point though, what is this corvette for? Fisheries? Anti-submarine warfare? Anti-surface littoral combat? That changes what guns you'd need.

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3h8l82qktm9jhdh/fssf3B.png

I attempted to see how many systems I could fit into a modest hull, without too overburdening it. Mostly, it's supposed to be used in the anti-surface role, but Desert Storm showed how vulnerable the old fashioned FAC was to air attack, so this is an early attempt to correct the problem on a small hull. Mostly, it's a sort of littorial warfare platform, with some modest ASW. This is still a WIP, with much work needing to be done with the mast, which I'm still not happy with. It was supposed to be an outgrowth of vessels like the Gerpard Class, perhaps being closest to Singapore's Victory class, though it looks like it's from a somewhat earlier era.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

OTO Melara for ever!!!

With the 750 rounds mechanized deposit is an overkill weapon...
Must see if and when this will be used, is the same system used for the 127/62 Vulcano.

_________________
Welcome to my Kingdom!!!
( http://shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=8293 )