Indonesia Indonesian Navy, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Laut (TNI-AL)

[R4duga]

https://www.facebook.com/defenceaustralia/posts/2918119255124310

a nice high definition picture of KRI Escolar by Australian Navy / Australian ministry of defence , when they were transporting the 19 indonesia fishermen who's unlucky and got their vessels sinking in southern indian ocean , i hope our Human Relations Documentary section on each armed forces branch can acquire a good camera and post HD picture on their represented page , because most of the time their pics resolution are so random , to the point of we're getting an UFO encounter picture quality .

 

[R4duga]

I thinks TNI could ask BPPT to do design study for armored cabin truck with lighter material and ask Pindad or local "karoseri" to produce it, it could standardized TNI truck armor and we didn't need coconut tree or improvised metal armor from TNI's workshop during combat operation.

there's a reason why APC or 6x6 MRAP exist though , might aswell look into it .

 

[R4duga]

new CN-235MPA unit and HELRAS dipping sonar for AS565MBe spotted .

https://www.facebook.com/lembagakeris/posts/3665108820264101

 

[Van Kravchenko]

Proyek... proyek... studi banding..... ahaaay

Why did you think Indonesian project like Malaysian ?
Project -> study -> RFI = NO RESULT

 

[Gary]

Maybe it is purchased as a RCWS in place of the machine guns?
I can't recall deck of KCR 60 but i think the deck is alredy penetrated to fit the gun foundation, and i doubt if they would purpose the area below as something else, but maybe ammo/chain store.

It would be better to cling by Bofors and Otomelara for the main cannon. Guided ER shells with a western CMS can be force multiplier of these boats in the future.
Russian RCWS variant fits better to non-strategic platforms with a single cannon and without CMS, like tank boat and KCR -40, Bakamla patrol vessels etc. i think?

If that's the case I wonder why the navy don't go with the bofors 40mm MK4, it's non hull penetrating, bofors 57mk3 is hull penetrating right?

 

[BBOn]

If that's the case I wonder why the navy don't go with the bofors 40mm MK4, it's non hull penetrating, bofors 57mk3 is hull penetrating right?

The BAE/Bofors 57mm Mk.110 is a significantly larger gun system but retains some key advantages over larger 76 and 127mm systems. Its non-deck penetrating.

 

[Van Kravchenko]

The BAE/Bofors 57mm Mk.110 is a significantly larger gun system but retains some key advantages over larger 76 and 127mm systems. Its non-deck penetrating. View attachment 21276

Any gun installed is ok, as long as its accurate and purpouse suited.

KCRs unecessary to shelling the shore to support infantry, her main role is to hit an enemy vessel then run ( if she can)

latest issue with KCR 60 are boat stabilizaton and speed. You cant call max 28 kn boat as fast missile craft.

 

[Panca]

 

[Anmdt]

If that's the case I wonder why the navy don't go with the bofors 40mm MK4, it's non hull penetrating, bofors 57mk3 is hull penetrating right?

Maybe they have foreseen a possibility for guided shells, 40mm would be hard to fit in some guidance in near future while 57mm is already avaliable. It is really a good choice.
I think both penetrates the deck at least for foundation installation. To raise it on a platform to not cut the deck, Bofors 57 requires twice as higher height. It is a bonus if the bow is prone to be submerged though. But i don't see such a raise platform so we can guess the deck will be cut slightly, at least not as much as for a gun with below-deck ammo storage.

The BAE/Bofors 57mm Mk.110 is a significantly larger gun system but retains some key advantages over larger 76 and 127mm systems. Its non-deck penetrating. View attachment 21276

Really comparing a 57 mm gun to 76/127 mm?
Non-penetrating guns are only a viable option when:
-There isn't enough space below the installed deck
-The gun supposed to be used elsewhere than the bow, like on top of the bridge, sides as CIWS or secondary cannon, RCWS.
-Below the deck area is inaccessible.
-When something more valuable than extra ammunition carried below the deck right under the gun.

And modern cannons do not occupy several meters in depth or a large volume below deck too, for example see 76mm and twin forty (2x40mm).

https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3151070/OTO_Twin_40L70_LQ_mm08756_.pdf?t=1538987742380

https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3151088/body_OTO_76_62_SR_LQ_mm08727_.pdf?t=1538987745884

 

[BBOn]

Maybe they have foreseen a possibility for guided shells, 40mm would be hard to fit in some guidance in near future while 57mm is already avaliable. It is really a good choice.
I think both penetrates the deck at least for foundation installation. To raise it on a platform to not cut the deck, Bofors 57 requires twice as higher height. It is a bonus if the bow is prone to be submerged though. But i don't see such a raise platform so we can guess the deck will be cut slightly, at least not as much as for a gun with below-deck ammo storage.

Really comparing a 57 mm gun to 76/127 mm?
Non-penetrating guns are only a viable option when:
-There isn't enough space below the installed deck
-The gun supposed to be used elsewhere than the bow, like on top of the bridge, sides as CIWS or secondary cannon, RCWS.
-Below the deck area is inaccessible.
-When something more valuable than extra ammunition carried below the deck right under the gun.

And modern cannons do not occupy several meters in depth or a large volume below deck too, for example see 76mm and twin forty (2x40mm).

https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3151070/OTO_Twin_40L70_LQ_mm08756_.pdf?t=1538987742380

https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/20142/3151088/body_OTO_76_62_SR_LQ_mm08727_.pdf?t=1538987745884

I said some key advantages over the larger one. I am not saying compared all the thing apple to apple.
While this gun doesn't offer the range and lethality of the 127mm and 75mm guns, some of its performances are comparable to those. such as
1. the rate of fire and the amount of explosive per shell into account (the Bofors gun achieves a higher amount of "explosive fired per second" compared to the 76mm.
2. the 57mm shells being smaller, a greater number may be stored aboard the ship.
3. a smaller main gun because of its lighter weight could allow the installation of larger remote weapon stations.
4. it's adequate against air threats and it also has a CIWS function, with or without specialized ammo.
5. it's very good against numerous small threats (i.e., small boats) using the 76/120 for that is not wise decision.
6. Life cost

 

[Anmdt]

I said some key advantages over the larger one. I am not saying compared all the thing apple to apple. Example,
The whole life cost of the system. While this gun doesn't offer the range and lethality of the 127mm guns, some of its performances are comparable to those. such as the rate of fire and the amount of explosive per shell into account (the Bofors gun achieves a higher amount of "explosive fired per second" compared to the 76mm. In addition, the 57mm shells being smaller, a greater number may be stored aboard the ship. a smaller main gun because of its lighter weight could allow the installation of larger remote weapon stations.

- Reloaded above deck, exposing personnel takes nearly 5 minute.
- Probably can not be reloaded above sea state 3 on such small vessels
- One hit at the gun itself, fully loaded with shells, the bow goes boom.

Shall i mention other drawbacks, that makes this kind guns only a viable option under certain conditions that is rather "chosen for optimized fit and firepower"?
Do you really think rate of fire matters that much in this kind of weapon especially with such a limited ammo capacity ready to be fired, especially in 21st century.
Storing more, i have not ever heard a sailor was complaining about not being able to have sufficient ammunition aboard.

Do you really think 127mm shells would be ever fired at full rate and ever believe a 57 mm is comparable to 127mm in any of the possible ways? This is literally an apple vs orange comparison.

Just giving those points so people maybe can stop comparing gun specs one by one and telling why one is better than another. Such as, look at what is offered via guided shells on 76mm and see the range and guidance options when you have time. Or care to compare explosives carried within a 76mm shell is nearly ~1.5 -2* times of a 57mm shell. If it has three times rate of fire then only it is comparable on the basis of delivered explosives.

Moreover, from your point of view they should have opted for 40mm even more ammo can be stored, smaller ,more compact, sufficient range. Just for telling, Although i am on the side of 57mm on KCR instead of a 76mm for certain reasons and i believe it is a perfect choice (tradition of bofors in navy, future proof, available for even smaller platforms for commonality) but we are not on the same page.

This is like telling 5.56 mm rifles are better than 7.62 mm or even better than a 12 mm machine gun, just because the shells are lighter and can be carried more.

 

[BBOn]

- Reloaded above deck, exposing personnel takes nearly 5 minute.
- Probably can not be reloaded above sea state 3 on such small vessels
- One hit at the gun itself, fully loaded with shells, the bow goes boom.

Shall i mention other drawbacks, that makes this kind guns only a viable option under certain conditions that is rather "chosen for optimized fit and firepower"?
Do you really think rate of fire matters that much in this kind of weapon especially with such a limited ammo capacity ready to be fired, especially in 21st century.
Storing more, i have not ever heard a sailor was complaining about not being able to have sufficient ammunition aboard.

Do you really think 127mm shells would be ever fired at full rate and ever believe a 57 mm is comparable to 127mm in any of the possible ways? This is literally an apple vs orange comparison.

Just giving those points so people maybe can stop comparing gun specs one by one and telling why one is better than another. Such as, look at what is offered via guided shells on 76mm and see the range and guidance options when you have time. Or care to compare explosives carried within a 76mm shell is nearly ~1.5 -2* times of a 57mm shell. If it has three times rate of fire then only it is comparable on the basis of delivered explosives.

Moreover, from your point of view they should have opted for 40mm even more ammo can be stored, smaller ,more compact, sufficient range. Just for telling, Although i am on the side of 57mm on KCR instead of a 76mm for certain reasons and i believe it is a perfect choice (tradition of bofors in navy, future proof, available for even smaller platforms for commonality) but we are not on the same page.

This is like telling 5.56 mm rifles are better than 7.62 mm or even better than a 12 mm machine gun, just because the shells are lighter and can be carried more.

- Reloaded above deck, exposing personnel takes nearly 5 minute.
- Probably can not be reloaded above sea state 3 on such small vessels
- One hit at the gun itself, fully loaded with shells, the bow goes boom.

View attachment 21293
Same concept with 57mm.


Shall i mention other drawbacks, that makes this kind guns only a viable option under certain conditions that is rather "chosen for optimized fit and firepower"?
KCR main role is to deliver the missile to enemy warships such as korvet and frigate not to confront them with her tinny main gun.

Do you really think rate of fire matters that much in this kind of weapon especially with such a limited ammo capacity ready to be fired, especially in 21st century.
Storing more, i have not ever heard a sailor was complaining about not being able to have sufficient ammunition aboard.
I already aswer this question.

Do you really think 127mm shells would be ever fired at full rate and ever believe a 57 mm is comparable to 127mm in any of the possible ways? This is literally an apple vs orange comparison.
are u ever shooting ones or witnessed how the different between this two main guns? Thats way I said 57 mm is more fast then the 127mm in fire rate.since the impossiblity of 127mm to be fired with full rate ( with her being stricted to maintain those high pressure, left alone to competated, the traverse speed alone is different) . Am i wrong for saying that?

Just giving those points so people maybe can stop comparing gun specs one by one and telling why one is better than another. Such as, look at what is offered via guided shells on 76mm and see the range and guidance options when you have time. Or care to compare explosives carried within a 76mm shell is nearly ~1.5 -2* times of a 57mm shell. If it has three times rate of fire then only it is comparable on the basis of delivered explosives.
I already told you above. For specific ship need specific gun and our Navy decides to try 57mm on KCR because they have experience with this gun before, moreover this gun provides several advantages that mentioned above. Why keep telling about how mighty the 76mm while if you put this gun on this boat it will make it trim by bow????

Moreover, from your point of view they should have opted for 40mm even more ammo can be stored, smaller ,more compact, sufficient range. Just for telling, Although i am on the side of 57mm on KCR instead of a 76mm for certain reasons and i believe it is a perfect choice (tradition of bofors in navy, future proof, available for even smaller platforms for commonality) but we are not on the same page.
The 57mm has over double the shell weight and explosive filling. i.e. a much bigger bang than the 40mm but still more acceptable than the 76mm/120mm in case of ammo storage quantity and space. Because we talk about 2,6 m draught and 8 m width ship.

This is like telling 5.56 mm rifles are better than 7.62 mm or even better than a 12 mm machine gun, just because the shells are lighter and can be carried more.

well in the case of close combat I will choose 5.56 since it will give me the advantage to maintain the recoil from burst shoot, but it still let me have my target on my sight. while the 7,62 will always make me correcting my stance posture and lost my target every time I tap the trigger, left alone it is to bulky to be used to clear a room. Seriously, 12 mm gun for clearing the rooms? this what you call effectiveness?

So, in other word I believe our Navy already use the right tools for the specific job.

The KCR is not our front line battle fleet thou. The function and doctrin of this ship is different. If you really want to see the real indonesian Fleets, then at least wait until China vessel sink one of our vessels. I believe our defense minister doesn't want lost his face and will rushing order the best type of fleet that we can get.

 

[reashot_xigwin]

Japan Offers to Jointly Build Warship with Indonesia

If the project materializes, it would strengthen Indonesia’s ability to deter Chinese intimidation in the South China Sea, and reinforce Japan’s cooperation with ASEAN.

Published 10 hours ago
on
May 21, 2021

By
The Sankei Shimbun

December 2020 launch of Japan's new 'FFM' type frigate, JS Kumano
The Japanese government hopes to enter into a contract with Indonesia for joint manufacturing of maritime vessels based on the design of a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) destroyer, it was learned on May 11.

Under Japan’s 2014 “Three Principles on Transfer of Defense Equipment and Technology,” the transfer of defense-related equipment for purposes such as surveillance and rescue operations is permitted, but the transfer of vessels such as frigates, which have lethal potential, is not.

However, joint production provides a legitimate path for assisting Indonesia with its needs for maritime monitoring vessels. The envisioned Japan-Indonesia joint production of a destroyer, if materialized, would be the first of its kind.

Japan, Italy, and Turkey are competing for defense-related vessel contracts with Jakarta.
Indonesia, a major power of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), has also been exposed to intimidation from China in the South China Sea. If Japan is successful in winning the joint manufacturing contract, it would expedite the strengthening cooperation with Indonesia and help hold China in check.
The prototype for the joint production proposal is the latest model of MSDF multi-mission frigate (FFM), currently scheduled to be commissioned in March 2022. In addition to anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, and naval battle abilities, this model also has anti-mine capabilities.

There are five categories of activity for which the transfer of defense equipment and technology is allowed under the three-point principles of 2014: rescue and relief; transportation, patrol, surveillance; and minesweeping.

Japan’s first-ever export of “finished defense products” was a package of air-defense radar units for patrol and surveillance, under an August 2020 contract with the Philippines. Maritime vessels for transportation, rescue, and relief can also be exported, but vessels with naval artillery aboard would not be allowed under the three-point principles.

A flotilla of Chinese maritime militia “fishing” vessels like the one found by Indonesia in its waters. This photograph is from an aggressive gathering of Chinese vessels around Japan’s Senkaku Islands (September 2020)

Bearing these constraints in mind, the Japanese government has determined that relocation of a frigate after it is built would be permissible if its construction is carried out as a joint development or joint production project. Adoption of a joint production formula based on the existing MSDF frigate is considered preferable, according to government sources, since joint development of a frigate is sure to take time before completion. It also has the advantage of further deepening bilateral cooperation through technology transfers and related collaborative activities, the sources said.

Indonesia’s Natuna Islands at the southern tip of the South China Sea, and part of the Indonesian exclusive economic zone (EEZ), are overlapped by China’s unilateral “nine-dash line” that covers expansive claims in the area but which the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled had “no legal basis.”
In December 2019, the Indonesian authorities confirmed that their patrol vessels had found a flotilla of Chinese fishing boats escorted by a government vessel belonging to the China Coast Guard engaged in illegal fishing operations inside the Indonesian EEZ. Since then, Indonesia has been deploying its naval vessels in the region, but it is anxious to obtain new naval vessels as early as possible.

https://japan-forward.com/japan-offers-to-jointly-build-warship-with-indonesia/

 

[Anmdt]

well in the case of close combat I will choose 5.56 since it will give me the advantage to maintain the recoil from burst shoot, but it still let me have my target on my sight. while the 7,62 will always make me correcting my stance posture and lost my target every time I tap the trigger, left alone it is to bulky to be used to clear a room. Seriously, 12 mm gun for clearing th6e rooms? this what you call effectiveness?

And yes this is my point, when you compare these bullets you prefer a case specific comparison, but while looking at 76mm vs 57mm vs 40mm you prefer simpler comparison barely looking at the whole picture but pure specs on rate of fire or the burst.
57, 76mm comparison might not be avaliable in the internet, you may see how their application differs like 5.56 vs 7.62mm. Each manufacturer writes as if their solutiom is the best if we look at their website.

The 57mm has over double the shell weight and explosive filling. i.e. a much bigger bang than the 40mm but still more acceptable than the 76mm/120mm in case of ammo storage quantity and space. Because we talk about 2,6 m draught and 8 m width ship

76mm comes with double filling compared to 57mm, as well depending on shell selection and roughly twice as heavy and with 30% taller. Again i will point out the previous comparison.

All i am telling, Indonesian Navy had reasons to chose 57mm on KCR, but it doesn't make it the perfect gun or the shell of a size with sweet spot compared to 76mm as you claim. (At this point mentioning of 127mm on FAC is pointless)
Check out Sa'ar 3, they could fit a 76mm gun. And my point here, if it was required the hull could handle it.

I already told you above. For specific ship need specific gun and our Navy decides to try 57mm on KCR because they have experience with this gun before, moreover this gun provides several advantages that mentioned above. Why keep telling about how mighty the 76mm while if you put this gun on this boat it will make it trim by bow????

Please compare weight of 57mm and 76mm, you will see the surprise there. Bofors 57mm is not really a light weight and petite solution, its occupation and weight is in the same class with a 76mm (above deck). There are other reasons to choose this gun, like i have told before there should be a solid reason to not use the space below deck or avoid it.

- Reloaded above deck, exposing personnel takes nearly 5 minute.
- Probably can not be reloaded above sea state 3 on such small vessels
- One hit at the gun itself, fully loaded with shells, the bow goes boom.

Via ammunition hoists yes, however hoist length is limited by ship's size, if not permitting hoist installation it has to go on via manual reloading. I am not really a fan of this hoist reloading system too.

If there is an ammunition hoist, it was my mistake not to include that, then those guns are on the same basis for those mentioned reasons.

And for the last,57mm was probably chosen for the tradition, past experience, personnel knows how to use the caliber and acquainted with cannon itself more than the 76mm (I know 76mm is also in use, but 57mm seems to have more prolonged application) just as you have said.
Also to be honest it is easier to include it in the design compared to a 76mm super rapid, less complex (doesnt require an accessible below the deck room, smaller deck opening, foundation and hull integration is less complicated etc) and great option to start with a design.

So before considering limitations on the size and space or firepower, i think they rather focused on simplicity to start with, and firepower came in the second so they have opted for 57 instead of 40. If Bofors have offered a 76mm i am sure they would also go for it.

 

[Anmdt]

So, in other word I believe our Navy already use the right tools for the specific job.

The KCR is not our front line battle fleet thou. The function and doctrin of this ship is different. If you really want to see the real indonesian Fleets, then at least wait until China vessel sink one of our vessels. I believe our defense minister doesn't want lost his face and will rushing order the best type of fleet that we can get.

For the earlier one, i can't tell anything about it because there is nothing to be told as of now. The future will show it.

For the latter, the ship is told to be a FAC and doctrine of FACs is they are being front runners, ambushing fleets, hit and runs, hiding behind islands clutters and sneaking around, rapid response etc.
FACs are more like the SOF of the Navies adopting the doctrine of operating those. If you say this boat is a just a patrol boat, but not a FAC then i would agree that it doesn't have to be in the front lines.

 

[BBOn]

And yes this is my point, when you compare these bullets you prefer a case specific comparison, but while looking at 76mm vs 57mm vs 40mm you prefer simpler comparison barely looking at the whole picture but pure specs on rate of fire or the burst.

You must be joking to compare manned gun with rifle.
Indeed, 57 rate of fire is 220/minute while the 76 is only 80/ minute. This itself is important when you facing fast small boat threat to sustainable continuous fire in order to improve bigger possibility hitting the target

All i am telling, Indonesian Navy had reasons to chose 57mm on KCR, but it doesn't make it the perfect gun or the shell of a size with sweet spot compared to 76mm as you claim. (At this point mentioning of 127mm on FAC is pointless)
Check out Sa'ar 3, they could fit a 76mm gun. And my point here, if it was required the hull could handle it.

Just to be clear. My previous statment is stated about some advantage of the 57mm over the bigger gun. I am not saying 57m Is better in all aspects over the bigger gun. 76 mm and 120 it self have some disadvantage over the smaller one.
Lets me ask u, are u believe saar 3 not need to exposed her crew when reloaded the ammunition. Since, from the air draft only I can guess they dont have the enaugh space to keep more ammunition. Compared if we use 57 mm on our KCR by size,space and volume, we can double the quantity.

Please compare weight of 57mm and 76mm, you will see the surprise there. Bofors 57mm is not really a light weight and petite solution, its occupation and weight is in the same class with a 76mm (above deck). There are other reasons to choose this gun, like i have told before there should be a solid reason to not use the space below deck or avoid it.

Yes, but how about the amount of the ammunition that can we load and store. The weight of ammunition it self is far to different. 57mm per round is 6.5 kg and the 76 mm round is 20kg.
How about the weight of the gun. ok, 57mm is 14 ton and 76mm is 21 ton.
Another's advantage is the fire control radar and optoelectrical fire control system such like thales mirrodor system and we have cooperation with thales indeed.

And for the last,57mm was probably chosen for the tradition, past experience, personnel knows how to use the caliber and acquainted with cannon itself more than the 76mm (I know 76mm is also in use, but 57mm seems to have more prolonged application) just as you have said.
Also to be honest it is easier to include it in the design compared to a 76mm super rapid, less complex (doesnt require an accessible below the deck room, smaller deck opening, foundation and hull integration is less complicated etc) and great option to start with a design.

This what i've tell you since the beginning + plus some advantage that I mentioned above, isn't?

 

[Anmdt]

Lets me ask u, are u believe saar 3 not need to exposed her crew when reloaded the ammunition. Since, from the air draft only I can guess they dont have the enaugh space to keep more ammunition. Compared if we use 57 mm on our KCR by size,space and volume, we can double the quantity.

Please look schematics of oto melara 76mm and you will see how its reloading and feed mechanism works for decades. It doesn't occupy that big space below the deck too.
Turkish Navy kilic class ,which is nearly 8.5 meters wide and with draft of 2.8 meters , operates 76mm as well, i have a friend on there, they are quite comfortable with it.
Space wise 76mm munition only occupies 30% more space just because of its length. Volume= weight. A ton of difference isn't really a big deal for ship of that size too.

You must be joking to compare manned gun with rifle.
Indeed, 57 rate of fire is 220/minute while the 76 is only 80/ minute. This itself is important when you facing fast small boat threat to sustainable continuous fire in order

Fast forty or twin forty is much better in this case then, this is what i mean you can't compare these guns on the same basis. Twin forty delivers smaller munition but in much higher rate with double, backed up barrels.
(2x300 for base model, 2x400 for fast model)
And while engaging fast targets, fire control system matters more than the rate of fire. 76mm can handle fast moving targets pretty cool with a good fire control system.

Again if this boat meant to counter anti symmetric threats (land/air) twin forty with programmable munition would be a better fit.

Yes, but how about the amount of the ammunition that can we load and store. The weight of ammunition it self is far to different. 57mm per round is 6.5 kg and the 76 mm round is 20kg.
How about the weight of the gun. ok, 57mm is 14 ton and 76mm is 21 ton.
Another's advantage is the fire control radar and optoelectrical fire control system such like thales mirrodor system and we have cooperation with thales indeed.

Similar type of rounds have similer weights in ratio of the explosives they have. 20 kg shell of 76mm is a variant which is not available on 57mm, HE- AP shells of 57 mm and 76mm are 6.5 and 12.5 kg respectively.

For example see here:

Italy 76 mm/62 (3") Compact, SR - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Sweden 57 mm/70 (2.25") SAK Marks 1, 2 and 3 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Dry weight of 76mm without ammo is 8 tons;

76/62 SUPER RAPID

www.leonardocompany.com

Plain 57mm is 7 tons,
With 1000 munitions 57mm results in 14 tonnes, 76mm results in 20 tons. Again this contradicts with your claim of 20 kg per shell for 76mm, a usual shell of 76mm is 12~ kg.
If handled during design stage 7 tons are simply nothing but a milimeter increase on the outer shell, for more firepower this can be done.

This what i've tell you since the beginning + plus some advantage that I mentioned above, isn't?

I agree on most parts, except those advantages written on paper was the driving point of chosing it.

 

[BBOn]

Please look schematics of oto melara 76mm and you will see how its reloading and feed mechanism works for decades. It doesn't occupy that big space below the deck too.
Turkish Navy kilic class ,which is nearly 8.5 meters wide and with draft of 2.8 meters , operates 76mm as well, i have a friend on there, they are quite comfortable with it.
Space wise 76mm munition only occupies 30% more space just because of its length. Volume= weight. A ton of difference isn't really a big deal for ship of that size too.


Fast forty or twin forty is much better in this case then, this is what i mean you can't compare these guns on the same basis. Twin forty delivers smaller munition but in much higher rate with double, backed up barrels.
(2x300 for base model, 2x400 for fast model)
And while engaging fast targets, fire control system matters more than the rate of fire. 76mm can handle fast moving targets pretty cool with a good fire control system.

Again if this boat meant to counter anti symmetric threats (land/air) twin forty with programmable munition would be a better fit.


Similar type of rounds have similer weights in ratio of the explosives they have. 20 kg shell of 76mm is a variant which is not available on 57mm, HE- AP shells of 57 mm and 76mm are 6.5 and 12.5 kg respectively.

For example see here:

Italy 76 mm/62 (3") Compact, SR - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Sweden 57 mm/70 (2.25") SAK Marks 1, 2 and 3 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Dry weight of 76mm without ammo is 8 tons;

76/62 SUPER RAPID

www.leonardocompany.com

Plain 57mm is 7 tons,
With 1000 munitions 57mm results in 14 tonnes, 76mm results in 20 tons. Again this contradicts with your claim of 20 kg per shell for 76mm, a usual shell of 76mm is 12~ kg.
If handled during design stage 7 tons are simply nothing but a milimeter increase on the outer shell, for more firepower this can be done.

I agree on most parts, except those advantages written on paper was the driving point of chosing it.

Well my friends, if You ask me. same, I wanted the 76mm too




But with term and condition apply ofcourse.

 

[Anmdt]

Well my friends, if You ask me. same, I wanted the 76mm too




But with term and condition apply ofcourse.

Specially with vulcano and dart ammunition i suppose?
They are working on some for 57mm too apart from ORKA, hope it will get released soon and the navy won't be stingy and buy those. It will be definitely a killer.

 

[BBOn]

Plain 57mm is 7 tons,
With 1000 munitions 57mm results in 14 tonnes, 76mm results in 20 tons. Again this contradicts with your claim of 20 kg per shell for 76mm, a usual shell of 76mm is 12~ kg.

76 mm dry wight it self is 7 ton.
Thats mean the gun, is not with the revolving magazine system.
20 kg per shell is TYPO things. I my trying to explain 28 pounds of the 76×636mmR. But instead conversions the pound first, I continued with the kg cause of typo thing.

Specially with vulcano and dart ammunition i suppose?
They are working on some for 57mm too apart from ORKA, hope it will get released soon and the navy won't be stingy and buy those. It will be definitely a killer.

Well... we talk about money that our navy cant have it enough to get such luxury things