spin? maybe we have different understanding of what “effective” means but there is no spin. for me “effective range” is the range at which i can engage a real target in the real world and stil have a good chance of a hit. so if my gun is more accurate, the system has a given p_k at a greater range. same counts for a shorter flight time. so the effective range is increased.
another important point here is the “effective” range is relating to a specific type of target. “effective” against a surface target, against a aircraft/uav, against a subsonic ashm, ….
in terms of a ciws, a ashm is the relating target.

so you could agree that only the italien navy uses the compact/sr as ciws. (afaik actually there is no other navy using any medium calibre gun as ciws) from your point of view what is the reason for that?
and maybe you should quote the hole sentence because i was clearly refering to the 76 mm as a ciws. it was not my intend to derate the performance of the compact as a general purpose gun.

hmm where did you get 6600 m from? navweaps quotes 5000 m as effective range for dart. for he-mon it should be less.

lol. “When fired at maximum ROF, there is a tendency for the mount to self-destruct” doesn’t mean that every single mount on the world will destroy itself before firing 40 rounds. if have seen at least one reportage in which there was a stoppage on a compact mount during a live fire exercive on a surface target (as far as i remember after the first salvo). the crew was not able to get it operational on time to use it again during this exercise. does this proof the reliability of the compact? imho no! does it support the quoted sentence? yes but how meaningful is a single video? i don’t know.

you should decide if you want to rely on navweaps or not, because using statement (a) to proof your opinion and calling statement (b) wrong without any real fact to proof this faulty is not a straight position.

and you assume that a smaller target is a more difficult target than a faster one. imho even a inaccurate gun (if we assume that the ak-176 is that much worser than compact or sr) can hit a small target if its moving rather slow. the trick is to wait until the target is close enough (-> effective range) and than start shooting at a high rof. the problem with fast moving targets is, that they cross this effective range to fast to get enough rounds in the air for a good chance for a hit.

I still think you are wrong about how the 76s are used on ships with multiple mounts and I also still think you are wrong about the 76s performance. Other than that, between a job and a child and a migraine, I really have no time to join the club and debate you. Especially since you make no effort whatsoever to back up any of your claims with actual references or materials. So, you’re on your own, have fun. 😡

Am i the only person who thinks its only a matter of time before a manned.. or optionally manned version of the mantis turns up…?

Zeb

Why on earth would you man it? The canopy-like housing probably contains a the satcom antenna (does with Global Hawk) so installing a cockpit would mean loosing that.

when shooting with a gun on a moving target, the flight time of the bullet is the main problem. this limits the the effectiv range a lot. dart is for increasing this range and to make the 76 mm effective again. but imho this isn’t very interessting for most navies. the italien navy allways used their oto’s for ciws so it makes sence to improve them and btw. the guns are italien made.
but i wouldn’t introduce a gun on my ships as a new ciws.
according to navweaps the accuracy of the compact mounts was realy bad but maybe they have improved it.

sorry but i didn’t get what you want to proof with this photos.

Actually, it is not about increasing range at all but about increasing accuracy through a) faster projectile and b) steerable i.e. guided projectile.

To increase the accuracy of widely used medium-caliber naval guns, Oto Melara, a unit of the Finmeccanica Group industrial conglomerate based in Rome, is employing the concepts of low drag and high speed with a new munition called Ammunition Reduced Time-of-Flight (ART).

The projectile, lighter and more aerodynamic than a conventional shell, heads toward the target at 1.5 times the speed of a conventional round. Because of its speed, the ART is less affected by wind and target motion and therefore far more accurate than a conventional round.

ART rounds require no modifications to ships’ guns and are compatible with existing automated ammunition handling systems. No modifications in the ships’ fire-control systems are required, either.

Another derivative is the DART (Driven ART), equipped with a guidance computer on the tail of the projectile and steerable canards on the nose. This version can be steered to the target by riding a radar beam from the gun’s fire-control radar, Stephen D. Bryen, president of Finmeccanica Inc., the U.S. representative of the Finmeccanica Group, told Sea Power.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NL_Nonlethal_072704,00.html
Sea Power, July 2004

Navweaps mentions undisclosed ‘reports’ about the Compact about reliability and accuracy problems. It does not list the original sources, nor their date. So, there is no checking them. For all I know, those problems may have occurred when the gun was first developed/introduced (teething trouble). If it was such a poor gun, however, it wouldn’t have become the export succes that it is, I would think (Navweaps: “about 1,000 Compact and SR guns were in service in 51 navies around the world as of December 2002. This weapon is produced under license in Australia, India, Japan, Spain and USA”). The Dutch navy for example has used it for years – in four successive classes of ships (new designed S-, L- and M-frigates and in refit of mod-Leander type Van Speijk class frigates presently serving in the navy of Indonesia) and I’ve not seen or heard of a single sign of dissatisfaction with the 76mm compact.

Navweaps also mentions:

The Italian Navy considers the SR to be an effective anti-missile weapon and new ships are being built with this weapon in place of the twin “Fast 40” used on earlier ships in that role. 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).

And about the Fast forty

These guns are much faster reacting than the World War II era Bofors 40 mm/56, but perhaps their greatest feature, at least when used in the anti-missile mode, is their higher accuracy. Breda claims that a twin Fast Forty, firing 900 rounds per minute, can kill an incoming supersonic missile flying in a straight line at ranges as great as 3,280 yards (3,000 m). The mount automatically switches from the lighter HE round to the heavier APFSDS when the missile reaches a range of 1,100 yards (1,000 m).

The Compact’s range never was an issue…

… and here I was thinking the 76mm Compact and SR were American. (NOT!)

As for falling apart while shooting at max rof … watch this (includes 40 rounds continuous fire of 76mm SR at Oto factory sight) and this (50 rounds continuous fire max rof by Dutch navy M-frigate)

As for your suggestion the 76 Compact and SR was somehow ineffective against missiles prior to arrival of Davide/Dart, do you know even the russian AK-176 can handle missiles (at least, according to navweaps it can):

This weapon is considered effective against missiles and during trials it consistently shot down Falanga ATGMs (AT-2 Swatter) simulating Harpoon ASMs. On average it took 25 rounds per missile.

(compare that with 3 Davide rounds …)

i think overlapping firing arcs is stil the best explanation. even on the de la penne there are only some small arcs where only a single mount can engage a target, and (imho) a better arrangement was not possible because the 127mm got the a and the aspide the b position.
in most cases using overlapping firing arcs is more useful than arranging fixed exclusive firing arcs for each turret. you can either double the firing rate or start shooting with the second mount as soon as the first run dry. and last but not least you will need less fire control radars so using 2 radars with 3 turrets fits well if two of them shoot at the same target.
so maybe i don’t need to write a letter to the italian navy 😉

In fact, there are some arcs where none of the 76mms can engage i.e. straight forward and low. You do realize these days single super rapids are used in CIWS role …? I think this shot is rather telling:

How about resurrecting (with more modern systems of course) the Hawker Siddeley P139B intended to perform the AEW/COD role aboard CVA-01?

Line drawings of the Hawker Siddeley P.139B. The AEW version (note the radar domes fore and aft) is shown in most of the views, but the freighter version is shown in the right mid profile.

A carrier capable version of the Hawker Siddeley HS.125 Dominie was considered for Carrier on Board Delivery tasks.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm

thanks!

Yeah, for what I’ve heard the costs of reactivating both would have been more or less the same as Portugal paid for the 2 M-type frigates = 240 M€

What do they do for that kind of money?:confused:
At that cost, I doubt Ukraine will be interested.

Kaohsiung-based CSBC pushed for an indigenous submarine program in 2001, but was unable to get MND support. The design for the Hidden Dragon Program, later known as the Indigenous Defense Submarine, was based on the Argentinean TR-1700 and the Norwegian Ula-class Type 210.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4035332

Those are rather dissimilar subs….!

TR-1700
Displacement: 2116 tonnes (Surfaced)
2264 tonnes (Submerged)
Length: 66 m
Beam: 7.3 m
Draught: 6.5 m
Speed: 15 Knots Surfaced, 25 knots Submerged
Range: 12000 nm at 8 knots surfaced
Complement: 26

U-Boot-Klasse 210
Displacement: Surface: 1,040 tons
Submerged: 1,150 tons
Length: 59 m (190 ft)
Beam: 5.4 m (18 ft)
Draft: 4.6 m (15 ft)
Speed: Surfaced 11 kn (20 km/h), Submerged 23 kn (43 km/h)
Range: 5,000 miles at 8 knots (15 km/h)
Complement: Approx. 18–21