Italian Navy DDX

[TomS]

No 76mm Sovraponte

And a third one on the hangar roof.

The arcs for the directors for those two midships guns look terrible, BTW. At least, I assume those are directors sitting on the deck behind the mounts.

 

[Moose]

And a third one on the hangar roof.

The arcs for the directors for those two midships guns look terrible, BTW. At least, I assume those are directors sitting on the deck behind the mounts.

I'm fascinated by the decision to adopt the side-by-side MFR arrangement from JMSDF's smaller combatants on a 10,000+t hull. Odd use of the absolutely massive deckhouses.

 

[helmutkohl]

Via Reddit /WarshipPorn

The new italian destroyer DDX has an updated rendering, featuring 80 VLS (48 Sylver A50 and 32 A70), she was developed by Italy as a multirole DDG, including a full set for ASW. [3395x1566]

View attachment 715618

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

I dont know about their reliability or functionality, but I must say, Italians make consistently beautiful modern naval ships. Cavour, Garibaldi, FREMM, and potentially this new DDX. Trieste is an exception, the original model was nice but it was significantly changed

 

[Tzoli]

I presume the double panels on the diagonal sides of the superstructure are part of an AEGIS radar system. Are these one of the SPY variants or an European equivalent?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm fascinated by the decision to adopt the side-by-side MFR arrangement from JMSDF's smaller combatants on a 10,000+t hull. Odd use of the absolutely massive deckhouses.

Especially when the deckhouses are shaped to have all 4 sets of arrays on one deckhouse. I would have expected the radar internals to need both faces of the deckhouse.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

And a third one on the hangar roof.

The arcs for the directors for those two midships guns look terrible, BTW. At least, I assume those are directors sitting on the deck behind the mounts.

They don't look like FCR to me, also the Sovraponte's have the FCR mounted under the barrel.

The two systems look like they are 2 High Energy Laser CIWS's, possible this is a fit for but not with option in the early years of service for these ships. They remind me of the recent HEL tested by Rheinmetall / MBDA.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

I presume the double panels on the diagonal sides of the superstructure are part of an AEGIS radar system. Are these one of the SPY variants or an European equivalent?

No, the italian navy uses Kronos radar systems build by Leonardo. The plates in the superstructure are Kronos series X-band & C-band MF AESA radars. The large radar on the hangar is the larger Kronos Power Shield, designed for BMD up to 1500 km.

The power shield is the Italian produced answer to the Thales SMART-L MM/N currently in service with the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Class LCF & French and Italian Horizon class. SMART-L MM/N has a range of up to 2000 km for BMD role.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No, the italian navy uses Kronos radar systems build by Leonardo. The plates in the superstructure are Kronos series X-band & C-band MF AESA radars. The large radar on the hangar is the larger Kronos Power Shield, designed for BMD up to 1500 km.

The power shield is the Italian produced answer to the Thales SMART-L MM/N currently in service with the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Class LCF & French and Italian Horizon class. SMART-L MM/N has a range of up to 2000 km for BMD role.

So there should be 4x arrays on each deckhouse? Air Search etc forward and BMD aft?

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

So there should be 4x arrays on each deckhouse? Air Search etc forward and BMD aft?

No, the Kronos is a system of radars similar to AEGIS. The big difference is that the BMD radar is not a fixed array but a traditional ''turning radar''.

The red circles are the location of the X & C band radar array panels placed on the corners of the forward and aft superstructure. These are also used on the PPA frigates of the Italian Navy.

The green circle is the power shield BMD radar.

 

[Scott Kenny]

No, the Kronos is a system of radars similar to AEGIS. The big difference is that the BMD radar is not a fixed array but a traditional ''turning radar''.

Odd, I wasn't expecting that!

Thanks!

 

[TomS]

They don't look like FCR to me, also the Sovraponte's have the FCR mounted under the barrel.

The two systems look like they are 2 High Energy Laser CIWS's, possible this is a fit for but not with option in the early years of service for these ships. They remind me of the recent HEL tested by Rheinmetall / MBDA.

There's another one aft behind the third Sovraponte and a similar looking thing forward above the bridge.

I think they might be Pharos FCRs, which are said to be more capable than the single-target radars that can be mounted on the gun itself.

PHAROS - Multi Target Tracking Radar

PHAROS is the Multi Target Tracking Radar for gun and missile control. Its electronic beam steering capability enables Multiple Target Tracking and integrated Guided Ammunition control.

www.thalesgroup.com

Edit: I went back to the Reddit thread and they had a better suggestion: NA-30S Mk 2. This is fielded on the PPAs and is planned for the Horizon class mid-life update, so it's a logical fit for the new DDXs as well.

NA-30S MK2

electronics.leonardo.com

 

[Phoenix_jz]

The on-mount RF antenna for the Sovraponte is just to communicate with the DART munition. It's not a proper fire control radar by itself - the same is true for the antenna in the Strales mount.

For general fire control, the gun still relies on an external radar - in this case what appears to be the NA-30S Mk.2, but on previous versions of design, the Kronos Starfire (fixed-face X-band GaAs AESA).

The panels on the superstructures are the Kronos Dual Band Radar, made up of the Kronos Quad (C-band GaN AESA) and the aforementioned Kronos Starfire. The C-band handles the vast majority of tasks, while the X-band generally does horizon watch, surveillance of small surface targets (periscopes, USVs, even mines), supports gun fire control, and coordinates with the IEWS (Virgilius) to act as an oversized electronic attack system.

Since it hasn't yet been mentioned here -

An interesting feature of this design revision is the 'light' gun system. The MMI has generally used the 25mm KBA as light waist guns for most of its modern combatants (some as RWS, most as manned mounts). This design is actually moving to a 30mm system (likely 30x173), all as Remote Weapon Systems. They will use a separate sensor system located on the forward mast and are intended to provide enhanced protection against low-end threats like one-way attack drones. There are now three positions - two just ahead of the forward superstructure, and one mounted on the port side of the helicopter hangar, opposite the aft electronic attack module.

To be totally honest I think this is a tad excessive given the extensive existing gun armament, but better safe than sorry I suppose.

 

[kqcke for you]

What do you guys guess the armament? I would guess atleast 48 Aster 30, 64 CAMM-ER (quad packed into Sylver) and 16 Cruise missiles from FC/ASW. But with 12.700t it may take the big chunky title from the german navy xD

 

[TomS]

What do you guys guess the armament? I would guess atleast 48 Aster 30, 64 CAMM-ER (quad packed into Sylver) and 16 Cruise missiles from FC/ASW. But with 12.700t it may take the big chunky title from the german navy xD

It looks like the planned fit is 48 ASTER 15/30 in the Sylver A50 forward and 32 strike missiles, future ASCMs, or future missile defense interceptors in the Sylver A70 amidships.

CAMM quadpack in Sylver has never been demonstrated. The fact that the RN opted to retrofit separate CAMM launchers in the T45s suggests it does not exist except as marketing. And the Italian Navy does not seem to have adopted CAMM-ER or the associated Albatros NG system, despite MBDA Italia's best efforts:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/mbda-italia-considerations-on-2022-and-a-look-forward-on-2023

 

[kqcke for you]

It looks like the planned fit is 48 ASTER 15/30 in the Sylver A50 forward and 32 strike missiles, future ASCMs, or future missile defense interceptors in the Sylver A70 amidships.

CAMM quadpack in Sylver has never been demonstrated. The fact that the RN opted to retrofit separate CAMM launchers in the T45s suggests it does not exist except as marketing. And the Italian Navy does not seem to have adopted CAMM-ER or the associated Albatros NG system, despite MBDA Italia's best efforts:

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/mbda-italia-considerations-on-2022-and-a-look-forward-on-2023

Yeah Just looked a bit around and it looks like only a dual pack would be possible in Sylver. This Just shows how limited this system is. I think its time to make a larger vls. Maybe based on MK.57 just not optemised for a peripheral position.

 

[TomS]

Yeah Just looked a bit around and it looks like only a dual pack would be possible in Sylver.

I'm not 100% convinced. I believe there's no technical impediment to quadpacking CAMM into Sylver, just that no one wants to spend the money to do it. And my recollection is that despite the larger fuselage diameter of the ER version CAMM and CAMM-ER fold into the same square cross section. If not, mixing them on the land-based launcher would be a problem.

@timmymagic for a reality check.

 

[kqcke for you]

I'm not 100% convinced. I believe there's no technical impediment to quadpacking CAMM into Sylver, just that no one wants to spend the money to do it. And my recollection is that despite the larger fuselage diameter of the ER version CAMM and CAMM-ER fold into the same square cross section. If not, mixing them on the land-based launcher would be a problem.

@timmymagic for a reality check.

They do. But to be 100% sure If it fits or not we would need to know how large that space is which we dont know. But then again in theory it would fit as Long ExLS is smaller then Sylver but i don't know that. Well i don't know ExLS cell diameter.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

There's another one aft behind the third Sovraponte and a similar looking thing forward above the bridge.

I think they might be Pharos FCRs, which are said to be more capable than the single-target radars that can be mounted on the gun itself.

PHAROS - Multi Target Tracking Radar

PHAROS is the Multi Target Tracking Radar for gun and missile control. Its electronic beam steering capability enables Multiple Target Tracking and integrated Guided Ammunition control.

www.thalesgroup.com

Edit: I went back to the Reddit thread and they had a better suggestion: NA-30S Mk 2. This is fielded on the PPAs and is planned for the Horizon class mid-life update, so it's a logical fit for the new DDXs as well.

NA-30S MK2

electronics.leonardo.com

It will be the NA-30S Mk2 indeed, the Italian navy will never use Pharos because they have a whole national industry that supports them.

Yes, the Italian navy will never select a non-Italian system if the national industry can supply it. The Thales pharos will not be ready before 2028 for the Royal Netherlands Navy, export orders will have to wait a bit longer.

I'm not 100% convinced. I believe there's no technical impediment to quadpacking CAMM into Sylver, just that no one wants to spend the money to do it. And my recollection is that despite the larger fuselage diameter of the ER version CAMM and CAMM-ER fold into the same square cross section. If not, mixing them on the land-based launcher would be a problem.

@timmymagic for a reality check.

I'm not sure if i share your opinion. The costs to develop dual or quadpacked missiles in the Sylver VLS will be much lower then to refit all ships with Mk41 or Mk57 VLS. In the current world situation additional missiles on current platforms are a easy increase of firepower for navies.

We might see the UK, FR and/or IT navies invest in this in the (near) future.

I do know that the Dutch navy is also looking into other missile systems to be fitted in or instead of the current US systems. No official information is available, rumors are the Israeli Barak family of missiles. But European missiles should not be excluded from the options.

 

[TomS]

I'm not sure if i share your opinion. The costs to develop dual or quadpacked missiles in the Sylver VLS will be much lower then to refit all ships with Mk41 or Mk57 VLS. In the current world situation additional missiles on current platforms are a easy increase of firepower for navies.

We might see the UK, FR and/or IT navies invest in this in the (near) future.

I do know that the Dutch navy is also looking into other missile systems to be fitted in or instead of the current US systems. No official information is available, rumors are the Israeli Barak family of missiles. But European missiles should not be excluded from the options.

I wasn't suggesting retrofitting with MK 41 or Mk 57. Neither strike me as realistic options for the Italian Navy. I'm pretty sure they are committed to Sylver. Unless there's some unexpected development of a European TBMD missile that won't fit, we should expect Italy to stick with that for some time. Even then, I'd expect European industry to develop a "Super-Sylver" rather than adopt a US launcher.

It's certainly possible that CAMM-ER will be adopted for Italian naval use eventually. As I noted, MBDA Italia is pushing it, but they have to admit that right now, ASTER 15 exists and is somewhat more capable, so there just isn't a place for CAMM-ER at the moment, operationally or budgetarily.

We do know that Pakistan has adopted Albatros NG with CAMM-ER missiles for its new corvettes, and the latest imagery suggests they're using a variant of the UK "mushroom farm" dedicated CAMM launcher.

 

[kqcke for you]

MK.57 was just an example for a new "super sylver" / new VLS system.

 

[Phoenix_jz]

The Marina Militare was interested in CAMM-ER at one point, but due to the smaller size of Sylver (remember it's 56x56cm, vs 63.8x63.8cm for Mk.41), and the fact CAMM-ER is cold-launch (and thus needs its canisters to be canted outwards), it was only possible to dual-pack it into Sylver A50. In fact, if you go back and look at some of the material around the units of the legge navale 2014, you will see this reflected - the PPA, for example, were advertised as being able to pack 32 CAMM-ER into 16x Sylver A50 VLS in the mid-2010s.

Ultimately, the missile system was not adopted, as the navy did not have the resources to support an additional ammunition line at the time (procurement budget really only got an uplift starting in 2019), it was redundant with Aster 15, and they already had the Asters in stock. Against only the ability to dual-pack, and with reduced performance against missile threats vs Aster 15, even as a cheaper missile CAMM-ER simply wasn't worth it for them. Just given the better budget situation now, it may be more viable for procurement in the near future, but I suspect that will be in the form of Albatros NG (the 'mushroom farm' launchers) on lighter units like the upcoming EPC/MMPC, rather than any Sylver-equipped frigates and destroyers.

Otherwise - missile armament is as others have already said. The forward battery of 48x A50 will be for SAMs (Aster 15, Aster 30, Aster 30 Block 1NT). The A70 cells aft will be for larger systems - potentially MdCN, which is supposed to be procured as an interim solution, but more likely for the missiles that come from the FC/ASW program. The future land attack cruise missile is expected to be delivered starting in 2028, while the future anti-ship missile will see first deliveries in 2034. Given the first DDX is expected to be delivered in 2029, the Future Cruise/FMC should be available already, albeit in limited numbers. The A70 cells are also expected to be able to launch future endo-atmospheric interceptors for use against hypersonics (namely, something like MBDA's 'Aquila').

 

[TomS]

CAMM-ER is cold-launch (and thus needs its canisters to be canted outwards), it was only possible to dual-pack it into Sylver A50.

MBDA continues to advertise that CAMM can quadpack in Sylver. Maybe not true for CAMM-ER, despite what I suggested earlier?

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/sea-ceptor/

As for angled launch, yes the mushroom farm tubes seem to be slightly angled. But I haven't seen any sign that ExLS (for example) uses angled launch tubes.

 

[Phoenix_jz]

MBDA continues to advertise that CAMM can quadpack in Sylver. Maybe not true for CAMM-ER, despite what I suggested earlier?

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/sea-ceptor/

With respect, at this point all we have is MBDA's claim about this being the case with Sylver, with no actual effort put towards such a solution.

With Sylver, I tend to find it best not to assume or take claims at face value until we actually see the capability demonstrated. Ex, A70 cannot fire Aster despite this being an advertised capability, and nor has VL MCIA, Crotale VT1 or CAMM ever been integrated into Sylver despite the advertising (with both Crotale VT1 and CAMM being described as quad-packing solutions). I'm not sure if it's MBDA or DCNS/Naval Group trying to take people for a ride, but somewhere between the two reality was detached.

As for angled launch, yes the mushroom farm tubes seem to be slightly angled. But I haven't seen any sign that ExLS (for example) uses angled launch tubes.

Mmm, you're right about that, it appears to launch straight up with ExLS. I wonder if the larger rocket motor of CAMM-ER impacts the margin of safety when it comes to directly vertical launches versus canted launches? It's possible CAMM could be more flexible in that regard.

 

[TomS]

With respect, at this point all we have is MBDA's claim about this being the case with Sylver, with no actual effort put towards such a solution.

With Sylver, I tend to find it best not to assume or take claims at face value until we actually see the capability demonstrated. Ex, A70 cannot fire Aster despite this being an advertised capability, and nor has VL MCIA, Crotale VT1 or CAMM ever been integrated into Sylver despite the advertising (with both Crotale VT1 and CAMM being described as quad-packing solutions). I'm not sure if it's MBDA or DCNS/Naval Group trying to take people for a ride, but somewhere between the two reality was detached.

This is fair. Not everything on a company website translates to reality.

OTOH, I do find people saying that they were told much the same about CAMM and Mk 41 a few years back, and we know that does in fact work now.

NavWeaps Forums-Type 45 upgrades post 2015 SDSR

There is no naval quad packing arrangement. It's a PR claim for a theoretical capability that was never brought to fruition yet never deleted from the

www.tapatalk.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

An interesting feature of this design revision is the 'light' gun system. The MMI has generally used the 25mm KBA as light waist guns for most of its modern combatants (some as RWS, most as manned mounts). This design is actually moving to a 30mm system (likely 30x173), all as Remote Weapon Systems. They will use a separate sensor system located on the forward mast and are intended to provide enhanced protection against low-end threats like one-way attack drones. There are now three positions - two just ahead of the forward superstructure, and one mounted on the port side of the helicopter hangar, opposite the aft electronic attack module.

To be totally honest I think this is a tad excessive given the extensive existing gun armament, but better safe than sorry I suppose.

So, 3x Mk38 or equivalent and 3x 76mm, plus a 5".

The 30mm guns are for small boats, think USS Cole or the Iranian speedboats. The 76mm are the actual CIWS.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

So, 3x Mk38 or equivalent and 3x 76mm, plus a 5".

The 30mm guns are for small boats, think USS Cole or the Iranian speedboats. The 76mm are the actual CIWS.

The DDX will be a heavy destroyer even for today's standards. Not only the 80 cells VLS's + 16 ASuW's but also the 7 gun turrets.
They could pass the ''cruiser'' specifications if you asked me.

 

[timmymagic]

MBDA continues to advertise that CAMM can quadpack in Sylver. Maybe not true for CAMM-ER, despite what I suggested earlier?

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/sea-ceptor/

As for angled launch, yes the mushroom farm tubes seem to be slightly angled. But I haven't seen any sign that ExLS (for example) uses angled launch tubes.

Dimensionally CAMM and CAMM-ER canisters are quadpackable in Sylver. Whether there are other technical issues which would preclude it is unclear. But given there were will be plenty of room elsewhere in the VL tube I can't think any would be insurmountable.

However, you would need an ExLS style insert for the A50 or A70, which wouldn't be an enormous challenge. After all it is in the main just a frame with some connections.

I think the question around canting the tubes is a red herring though. The RN and RNZN might like it in the mushroom farm arrangement at present, but given that the Canadians, Polish and Saudis (and I suspect RN in due course) are going to use Mk.41 with ExLS for CAMM/CAMM-ER and potentially CAMM-MR (which the indications to date show is cold launched) it looks like their concerns around missiles not igniting and falling back appear to have been allayed.

 

[timmymagic]

With respect, at this point all we have is MBDA's claim about this being the case with Sylver, with no actual effort put towards such a solution.

With Sylver, I tend to find it best not to assume or take claims at face value until we actually see the capability demonstrated. Ex, A70 cannot fire Aster despite this being an advertised capability, and nor has VL MCIA, Crotale VT1 or CAMM ever been integrated into Sylver despite the advertising (with both Crotale VT1 and CAMM being described as quad-packing solutions). I'm not sure if it's MBDA or DCNS/Naval Group trying to take people for a ride, but somewhere between the two reality was detached.

This is true. Its a similar situation with ExLS. We know it has fired CAMM on a land range a couple of times (or at least some cold launch tests, although how complex those tests were is questionable). But it's never launched at sea, or with CAMM-ER, or as far as I am aware as a liner in a full Mk.41 system..... The method of launching CAMM from the canister does tend to reduce the risk of any issues though. If it launches out of its canister on a test stand it will from ExLS. Other capabilities like Nulka, RAM Blk.II and Hellfire have been advertised for ExLS but never demonstrated outside of CGI.

But....integrating Aster to Sylver A70 wouldn't be particularly hard, and given CAMM's soft launch from its own canister I suspect any attempt to integrate to Sylver would be very low risk and cost.

 

[kqcke for you]

The DDX will be a heavy destroyer even for today's standards. Not only the 80 cells VLS's + 16 ASuW's but also the 7 gun turrets.
They could pass the ''cruiser'' specifications if you asked me.

8 ASuW Missiles.
8 Teseo Mk2/E.

 

[TomS]

. Other capabilities like Nulka, RAM Blk.II and Hellfire have been advertised for ExLS but never demonstrated outside of CGI.

Nulka launch from ExLS (what we'd now call Host ExLS) was demonstrated in 2010.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/201...ew-Launching-System-for-Active-Missile-Decoys

The RN and RNZN might like it in the mushroom farm arrangement at present, but given that the Canadians, Polish and Saudis (and I suspect RN in due course) are going to use Mk.41 with ExLS for CAMM/CAMM-ER

Small nitpick, but the Canadian application seems to be the ExLS 3-cell Stand Alone launcher rather than the drop-in Host ExLS in Mk 41 for the Poles and Saudis. The 3-cell ExLS uses a lot of Mk 41 components, but it isn't a true Mk 41. Most obviously, it lacks a separate exhaust plenum like all the Mk 41 versions. And of course it's shorter than even the self-defense version of Mk 41.

 

[Cifu]

What give me creeps the 76mm CIWS.
This could be the new standard in medium / large size ships...

 

[Scott Kenny]

What give me creeps the 76mm CIWS.
This could be the new standard in medium / large size ships...

• In terms of CIWS systems with that much range, it's either the 76mm, Bofors 57mm, or a RAM launcher
• RAM has the 76mm beat by a bit over 1 ton in weight. Phalanx CIWS is about as heavy as a RAM launcher, so ~1 tonne lighter than the 76mm; and the 57mm Bofors Mk110 is 14 tonnes, over twice the weight of the 76mm (admittedly with 1000rds of 57mm, not 76rds of 76mm)
• The RAM also has about 1km more range, but that's only a difference of between 8 and 9km (trivial IMO, it's a difference of about 1sec in engagement time versus a supersonic AShM).
• The 76mm has a massive advantage in magazine capacity (76 ready-use rounds in the Sovraponte and 80 in the Super-rapid versus 21 RAM missiles), and the 76mm DART rounds are radio command guided from a radar set up on the turret, not a separate system. That said, I'm not sure that the magazine capacity is that big an advantage, depends on the P(k) of the DART rounds. If you add 15 more RAM missiles to the launcher, you will roughly equal the weight of the 76mm and now it's got half the magazine capacity of the Sovraponte.
• If P(k) of the DART rounds is pretty close to that of RAM, then the 76mm has a much bigger advantage. If it's capable of selecting the next round to fire, so you can load 50% DART antimissile rounds, 25% Vulcano long-range rounds, and 25% plain HE or whatever, that gives more flexibility to the 76mm compared to RAM.
• RAM, 76mm, and the Bofors 57mm all need separate fire control and search radars, Phalanx and SeaRAM have the advantage here as fully self-contained units you can just drop wherever there's deck space.
• Radio command guidance can actually be a weakness compared to the fire and forget RAM, I'm not sure how many DART rounds can be guided simultaneously. What I'm not sure about is if RAM has the ability to call targets for each missile and therefore ripple fire against multiple incoming at once. If it can salvo-fire, then RAM is the overwhelming win here. If neither one can engage multiple targets simultaneously, that's a tie.

Crud, the more I compare the 76mm, the more I like it... Especially in comparison to the 57mm Mk110! About the only place the 57mm beats the 76mm is for making a flak wall.

Edited for phrasing.

 

[kqcke for you]

• Radio command guidance can actually be a weakness compared to the fire and forget RAM, I'm not sure how many DART rounds can be guided simultaneously. What I'm not sure about is if RAM has the ability to call targets for each missile and therefore ripple fire against multiple incoming at once. If it can salvo-fire, then RAM is the overwhelming win here. If neither one can engage multiple targets simultaneously, that's a tie.

The can and RAM Block 2b even have a missile to missile data link for it.
Dart has a effektive range of about ~8km with 2.5kg warhead where RAM Block 2b (if you take the newest RAM) has 10-13km range with a ~11,4kg warhead. Makes it easier to Hit but as we know not without a cost. Each of the RAM Block 2b in 2022 the navy bought cost more than 830.000€ (probaly around a million).

 

[mirco1961]

• In terms of CIWS systems with that much range, it's either the 76mm, Bofors 57mm, or a RAM launcher
• RAM has the 76mm beat by a bit over 1 ton in weight. Phalanx CIWS is about as heavy as a RAM launcher, so ~1 tonne lighter than the 76mm; and the 57mm Bofors Mk110 is 14 tonnes, over twice the weight of the 76mm (admittedly with 1000rds of 57mm, not 76rds of 76mm)
• The RAM also has about 1km more range, but that's only a difference of 8-9km (trivial IMO, it's a difference of about 1sec in engagement time versus a supersonic AShM).
• The 76mm has a massive advantage in magazine capacity (76 ready-use rounds in the Sovraponte and 80 in the Super-rapid versus 21 RAM missiles), and the 76mm DART rounds are radio command guided from a radar set up on the turret, not a separate system. That said, I'm not sure that the magazine capacity is that big an advantage, depends on the P(k) of the DART rounds. If you add 15 more RAM missiles to the launcher, you will roughly equal the weight of the 76mm and now it's got half the magazine capacity of the Sovraponte.
• If P(k) of the DART rounds is pretty close to that of RAM, then the 76mm has a much bigger advantage. If it's capable of selecting the next round to fire, so you can load 50% DART antimissile rounds, 25% Vulcano long-range rounds, and 25% plain HE or whatever, that gives more flexibility to the 76mm compared to RAM.
• RAM, 76mm, and the Bofors 57mm all need separate fire control and search radars, Phalanx and SeaRAM have the advantage here as fully self-contained units you can just drop wherever there's deck space.
• Radio command guidance can actually be a weakness compared to the fire and forget RAM, I'm not sure how many DART rounds can be guided simultaneously. What I'm not sure about is if RAM has the ability to call targets for each missile and therefore ripple fire against multiple incoming at once. If it can salvo-fire, then RAM is the overwhelming win here. If neither one can engage multiple targets simultaneously, that's a tie.

Crud, the more I compare the 76mm, the more I like it... Especially in comparison to the 57mm Mk110! About the only place the 57mm beats the 76mm is for making a flak wall.

Some notes:
- the DART is fired in 3-rounds volleys, for each target. Volleys of 15 rounds are possible, and demostrated
- The magazine of any 76mm gun will be refuelled even during fire, by a team of two men
- the magazine is a dual type magazine, or a single type in oldest guns: so, the problem of switching ammunition is a no problem thing.
In any case, the DART is not combat proven, at now, although intensively tested: the Doria fires, in Red Sea, normal FRAG ammunitions against Houthy drones.
- About multiple targets.... is the motivation of the DART and the 76\62 in anti-missile way. A gun will react very quickly (a 76 have a reaction time of 3 seconds) and the Italian Ships normally have two of the guns, except for the Bergamini\FREMM not ASW, that have one.

 

[Cifu]

To sum it's a great new gun, the only drawback it's the one target channel (one target can be handled simultaneously).
The Mk.110 (or the Bofors 57mm Mk.4) biggest drawback it's do not have guided ammunition, just 3P.
Nota bene, there is a guided ammunition development here too.

I'm impressed about it's capability. Yet, a bit suprised the Italian DDX do not planned a (cheaper) medium range missile, like CAMM(-ER) or ESSM Mk.2. The Aster-15 is... not really optimal for this role...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Some notes:
- the DART is fired in 3-rounds volleys, for each target. Volleys of 15 rounds are possible, and demostrated

Ah, that shifts things more in favor of the RAM launcher. 76/3=25 incoming missiles engaged in the ready racks. A typical RAM launcher holds 21 and is lighter. You could probably add more tubes to the RAM launcher and equal or exceed the number of "stored kills" for the same weight as the Sovraponte.

- the magazine is a dual type magazine, or a single type in oldest guns: so, the problem of switching ammunition is a no problem thing.
In any case, the DART is not combat proven, at now, although intensively tested: the Doria fires, in Red Sea, normal FRAG ammunitions against Houthy drones.

If those magazines can select the next round loaded that would be a huge advantage to the OTO 76mm. I mean not just have the left magazine loaded with Darts and right magazine with Frag, but have one magazine loaded with a mix of Darts and Frag (for anti missile work) with the other loaded with a mix of Volcano and SAPOM (or whatever you'd want for supporting ground forces ashore).

 

[Phoenix_jz]

To sum it's a great new gun, the only drawback it's the one target channel (one target can be handled simultaneously).

This may not be such an issue anymore, with the new generation of director systems. NA-30S Mk.2, for example, is a dual-band (X-band & Ka-band) system, the latter of which fills the same role as the on-mount RF antenna (which itself is Ka-band).

I'm impressed about it's capability. Yet, a bit suprised the Italian DDX do not planned a (cheaper) medium range missile, like CAMM(-ER) or ESSM Mk.2. The Aster-15 is... not really optimal for this role...

FWIW, the design is not finalized so we can't for sure say it won't have CAMM-ER (which is the most likely option). And MBDA Italia has mentioned that the integration of CAMM-ER onto the FREMM-EVO was requested as part of the studies for that interim design. So CAMM-ER seems to have gained a second opportunity to be adopted by the Marina Militare.

How, exactly, though, I'm not sure. CAMM-ER is not as compelling out of Sylver A50, since it can only dual-pack, as ESSM is in Mk.41, when you're comparing it to Aster 15, and in particular the new Aster 15 EC that will be available by the end of the decade. If the long-rumored new evolution of Sylver VLS comes out in time and is capable of quad-packing CAMM-ER, then it would definitely make the argument for CAMM-ER stronger and I really hope they go this route.

Ah, that shifts things more in favor of the RAM launcher. 76/3=25 incoming missiles engaged in the ready racks. A typical RAM launcher holds 21 and is lighter. You could probably add more tubes to the RAM launcher and equal or exceed the number of "stored kills" for the same weight as the Sovraponte.

Bear in mind, while Sovraponte can be mounted in a purely non-deck penetrating mount that does not have any resupply save manual, most installations still have a mechanism that allow ammunition to be passed up from below deck, allowing the two 38-round fans to be reloaded while the system is firing. So the magazine depth is not quite limited to on-mount ammunition only, and should generally be sufficient given, as an ILDS/CIWS it should only be dealing with leakers rather than having to defend against a saturation attack by itself.

I'd also note that if you're adding more than 21 tubes to Mk.49 (4,064 kg empty, 5,777 kg loaded), you are inevitably going to increase weight. We're unfortunately lacking the specific weight of the Sovraponte mount, but we can estimate that it's probably around 5,135 kg empty (Supposed to be 30-40% lighter than the Super Rapido, which is 7,900 kg empty. I used 35% as a happy medium), and with 76x 76mm complete rounds (937.84 kg), you'd be looking at a loaded mass of 6,072.84 kg. So, 5% heavier than Mk.49, but with 19% more stored kills on paper, and the potential for an easier reload.

SeaRAM, meanwhile, is 8,074 kg, presumably when loaded with all 11 missiles.

With all this said, it's worth noting that the 76mm is still multirole system, not purely a CIWS like RAM (though RAM can be used against small surface targets afaik). A 76mm has a very good chance of not carrying a pure load of DART and thus the hypothetical number of stored kills can easily fall short of the hypothetical 25 - whereas RAM is always shooting some version of RIM-116.

The two systems simply don't fill the exact same role.

I don't think it should be controversial to say RAM is the better CIWS versus Davide/Strales, although at the same time it does have to be said the latter is more versatile, more easily reloaded in action, and certainly vastly cheaper (a single RIM-116 is something like 30x the cost of a DART round).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Bear in mind, while Sovraponte can be mounted in a purely non-deck penetrating mount that does not have any resupply save manual, most installations still have a mechanism that allow ammunition to be passed up from below deck, allowing the two 38-round fans to be reloaded while the system is firing. So the magazine depth is not quite limited to on-mount ammunition only, and should generally be sufficient given, as an ILDS/CIWS it should only be dealing with leakers rather than having to defend against a saturation attack by itself.

By that same measure you can also pass rounds from the magazine up to the RAM launcher, albeit not when it's firing missiles.

But "weight per stowed kill" is a useful comparison number, and generally holds the Sovraponte about equal to the RAM.

I don't think it should be controversial to say RAM is the better CIWS versus Davide/Strales, although at the same time it does have to be said the latter is more versatile, more easily reloaded in action, and certainly vastly cheaper (a single RIM-116 is something like 30x the cost of a DART round).

I'm certainly seeing the Sovraponte as the best option as your "extra guns" like the Mk38 25mm units. Much more flexibility, even if it is 5 tonnes instead of a bit over 1 tonne.