Well, even now the APAR seems to still be sufferring from reliability problems. That might have been a serious factor in the Aussies selecting the AEGIS/SPY combi over the APAR then.

from my understanding it’s not an issue of apar. the german cms has some problems but i didn’t heard anything from the dutch. afaik the de zeven and the sachsen class does not use the same software for their cms. without having facts for this i heard that the german cms is more advanced. it would be interesting to get some facts for this.

but beside this both classes already did some live firings with great success.

Possible , can you get similar numbers for ISUS 83,90 & 2000 , that would make it fair to compare.

not for isus but kongsberg quotes this for their msi-90u mk2:

The MSI-90U Mk 2 system is capable of simultaneous automatic and operator-inthe-loop target motion analysis computation for more than 100 targets.
The system can prepare and control up to eight torpedoes simultaneously in the water. Likewise, it is prepared for firing and control up to four missiles.

Now, even with the longest range AShMs, many modern destoryers have (or will have soon-ish) SAMs with ranges to reach out and intercept the planes before they can launch, and launching missiles at the very edge of their range envelope will have a negative impact on the PK of the missiles as well as give the target greater warning on an attack.

if the plane flies low it can get very close until it cross the radar horizon of a ship mounted radar (less then 50 km). without a offboard radar, cec and active homing sam’s there is now chance to use long range sam’s to engage low flying targets.

Nicely spin. But earlier you said “when shooting with a gun on a moving target, the flight time of the bullet is the main problem. this limits he the effectiv range a lot. dart is for increasing this range and to make the 76 mm effective again.” I think you’re backpaddling.

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.

At no point did I suggest or imply the 76mm Oto is widely used as a CIWS. And that would be besides the point anyway since the point was that you claimed the Compact and SR to be ineffective in general (“to make the 76 mm effective again”, “according to navweaps the accuracy of the compact mounts was realy bad “), which really it isn’t.

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.

Sidestepping. The point of that example (which comes from a page you quoted) is that the Oto 76mm SR has an effective range of about 6600m versus some 3000m for the fast forty (which is why increasing range – whether effective or otherwise – is not the main issue for the 76mm)

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

Surely, guns that don’t come apart when conducting sustained fire are more accurate than guns that do? Anyway, the point was to show that some of the claims on the navweaps obviously are wrong, not necessarily specifically referring to accuracy. Neither gun fell apart.

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.

Again sidetracking, ignoring the point which is that even the AK-176 can kill missiles (and you claim the Oto 76 is ineffective while it is probably a better gun than the AK-176).
Incidentally, Harpoon does 855 km/h (237,5 m/s) so yes at 150-170 m/sAT-2 is slower and thus easier target. However, AT-2 is much smaller (Length: 1160 mm Diameter: 148 mm) than Harpoon (Length 3.84 – 4.57 meters [depending on version] Diameter 24.29 cm) and thus more difficult target.

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.

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.

Oh ok. So, how do you explain the arrangement of the 76mm’s on the Duran de la Penne class? Given where the forward 2x 76mm are located, there is no way they can have overlapping arcs ….

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 😉

from the technical point of view i think it should be possible to remove the mk-13 and use the space for two mk-41. weight and space should be not the problem.
from the economical point of view i wouldn’t spend that money to upgrade a ship like the perry class but some of the perry users tend to think different about this point.

The difference is that a small UCAV or AshM is more likely to be “stealthed” against X-band. It’s progressively more difficult to stealth against longer frequency bands because of the physical size the resonating structures and thickness of radar absorbing structures and materials, have to be correspondingly and proportionally increased in size with the lengthening wavelength. So the VLO object is more likely to be seen earlier and ahead by an S-band rather than an X-band radar. Missile terminal guidance is another matter however since all that has to be at least in the X-band. But of course, the L-band radar can also spot the VLO object too, but even if there is no sure fire solution, don’t you think its better to have two radars seeing it, and engaging the target earlier with the second radar, rather than one radar seeing it, and engaging the target later with the second radar?

i don’t think that this is really a problem of x-band because a object can also be optimised to have a small rcs in s-band instead of x-band. for sure making radar absorbing materials for longer wavelengths is a problem but imho it is to much simplified that a s-band radar will detect a vlo e.g. at horizon search before a x-band can detect it.
there are dozens of parameters which have to be considered. e.g. do we speak about a low flighing target which pops up at 30 or 40 km or about a target flighing high enough to be detectable at 150 km? the first one should be no problem because a primary design goal for apar was the early detection of sea skimmers; it performs well on low flighing objects and at this range there is enough power to make vlo targets visible. the maximal horizon search range of apar is quoted to be 75 km which makes sense to me. a high resolution mfr is neither designed for long range search nor is it very useful here. a dedicated long range volume search radar can be used to start a cued search and tracking of targets with the mfr.
i think this is also the main reason why the type 45 also carries the s1850m. bae and others don’t get tired to claim that sampson doesn’t need a second vsr but there is no info about power/time budget if sampson is used without a second vsr.
if i got an initial track from the vsr and if the mfr is not used for volume search, it has much more time for tracking these targets. if the target is difficult to track, more time/power etc. can be used on it.

and using a s-band mfr doesn’t change much on the vlo example if the sarh needs x-band terminal illumination or if the arh-sam has a tiny j (ku)-band seeker. vlo-targets will reduce the performance of all of these systems.

(btw the rcs of a bird at x-band is about 10^-3 to 10^-4 sqm)