The Ship Model Forum

Oh, I just LOVE it!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUXDAhP3Fg

http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files ... 6-62SR.pdf

The 76mm was the main equipment I worked on, it was impressive when allowed to fire at 80rpm, the only part I hated was that I had no local fire button on my control panel, it was ONLY fired via fire control. The water cooling tended to make a mess also.

Mk 75 Gunner wrote:The 76mm was the main equipment I worked on, it was impressive when allowed to fire at 80rpm, the only part I hated was that I had no local fire button on my control panel, it was ONLY fired via fire control. The water cooling tended to make a mess also.

How was the overall reliability? Some reports have indicated that there were frequent mechanical problems.

Thanks,
Bob

Overall it was pretty reliable, near the end of my tour we had some big issues crop up and I heard later that one of the trunnion blocks had somehow become cracked. There was a lot of PMS involved with the system and it kept us busy lol

120 3" rounds a minute!!!! AWESOME!!!!!!

The fact that it can effectively take out sub-sonic sea skimmers with such a large round makes it all the more awesome. LCS should have one of these as well as it's 57mm.

Cliffy B wrote:120 3" rounds a minute!!!! AWESOME!!!!!!

The fact that it can effectively take out sub-sonic sea skimmers with such a large round makes it all the more awesome. LCS should have one of these as well as it's 57mm.

Well, that was the thought David and I had and why we opted to go with a 76mm and a 57mm. I'd be cautious, though, about believing the claims of being able to handle aerial targets. Manufacturer's claims are always overstated and hitting an aerial target with an unguided projectile at a sufficient distance to provide protection from ballistic damage is a challenging task, at best.

Well in OTO's defense, they only claim the gun can do that IF and only IF its paired with its new FC system. Use a different system and all bets are off more than likely.

Remember though, to use the SR mounting you have to completely change out the gun and its below deck guts. They do however offer kits to upgrade the older mounts and increase their ROF. That gets them up into the 90-100 RPM range. To get 120 RPM you need to get the SR mount. Might be something to consider if you have cost concerns. I'm also not sure of anyone else who uses the SR mount yet besides Italy. Whether that's due to no one buying it yet or Italy not allowing sales is anyone's guess.

Cliffy B wrote:Well in OTO's defense, they only claim the gun can do that IF and only IF its paired with its new FC system. Use a different system and all bets are off more than likely.

Remember though, to use the SR mounting you have to completely change out the gun and its below deck guts. They do however offer kits to upgrade the older mounts and increase their ROF. That gets them up into the 90-100 RPM range. To get 120 RPM you need to get the SR mount. Might be something to consider if you have cost concerns. I'm also not sure of anyone else who uses the SR mount yet besides Italy. Whether that's due to no one buying it yet or Italy not allowing sales is anyone's guess.

The only gun that I believe can successfully engage an aerial target is the Phalanx CIWS due to its ability to "steer" the rounds into the target. Any other gun would have to prove itself and I'm not aware of any realistic testing. Of course, the CIWS is only effective at close range and even then I don't believe the extent of the accuracy claims.

Your comments about the 76mm SR are valid. Presumably, the gun would only require the same internal size and space as the current version. If so, it would be a reasonable upgrade even with the minimal-cost criteria. However, I'm still not sure we shouldn't stick with the existing 76mm to better stay in line with the premise of this build. I'll consult with David and see what he thinks.

Thanks,
Bob

Woops, el Cid was right, the 2nd refuelling point was just aft of the bridge wings, we tried not to use it; became very crowded!

Wasn't aware the USN had added Nulka to the bridge roof, would have thought with the superstructure cracking issues they would have put them down lower. Glad I wasn't a deck ape, living on the GDP would have been fun, NOT

Like the thought of the 57 & 76 pairing up, would make for an interesting fireworks display. Dug up a couple of pictures of the mini typhoon; it's an Rafael system; light weight stabilised remotely operated system, which can be mated with a number of sensors & weapon systems from the basic IR/EO



to a GAU17 Gatling gun, grenade launchers or compact missile systems



Bill

Bill Davidson wrote:Woops, el Cid was right, the 2nd refuelling point was just aft of the bridge wings, we tried not to use it; became very crowded!

Wasn't aware the USN had added Nulka to the bridge roof, would have thought with the superstructure cracking issues they would have put them down lower. Glad I wasn't a deck ape, living on the GDP would have been fun, NOT

Like the thought of the 57 & 76 pairing up, would make for an interesting fireworks display. Dug up a couple of pictures of the mini typhoon; it's an Rafael system; light weight stabilised remotely operated system, which can be mated with a number of sensors & weapon systems from the basic IR/EO



to a GAU17 Gatling gun, grenade launchers or compact missile systems



Bill

I forgot to comment about this earlier, sorry. The US Navy has a version of this called ROSAM, and I have a lot of experience with that particular system and this type of system. It sounds kind of neat in a techno-awesome way but in reality it's not very good. The contractors would hate me for saying this, because I know how hard they have worked on this system, but it causes more problems than it fixes. It tried to fix target acquisition and provide greater safety to the operator.

It still requires someone to run outside to load it, someone to run outside to clear jams, someone to run outside reload it, and someone to run outside to change the barrels on weapons that need barrel changes. Depending on where you're operating this system from (maybe deep inside CIC!) attending the weapon itself is pretty impractical and would take a really, really long time. That takes the gun out of the fight, and you cannot have that. So, these remote systems reduce the reliability of the weapon, slows reaction time, and introduces a whole other range of maintenance issues. The 25mm/30mm Mk38 is okay like this, because it's a big ass cannon. Crew-served weapons are best operated by people.

When in gun fights the weapon has to be down for as little time as possible. Hopefully only seconds as someone else is engaging with the last bit of ammo he has before he has to reload and leaves no guns firing at all.

Assuming the gun does not jam, this system lets you shoot one belt of ammunition before you have to leave your console and run out to the gun and reload it if not work on it.

There are interface issues.

What we found is that it is better to have someone operating the weapon by hand so you can fix any problems thar arise immediately. We canceled the rest of the ROSAM orders and were looking at increasing the lethality of the .50 by installing the GAU-19.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S21EG5cACQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PInYfRIdKk4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpFDHO-t ... ature=fvwp

navydavesof wrote: We canceled the rest of the ROSAM orders and were looking at increasing the lethality of the .50 by installing the GAU-19.

David, what's the difference between the GAU-19 and -17?

I noticed in the videos that the weapon has an initial recoil that pushes the barrel up an inch or two and then stabilizes in that position until the firing ends. Are the operators trained to initially aim low or to correct after the recoil occurs? I couldn't see any evidence of corrections. In the scenes that showed the rounds impacting, it looked like the majority of rounds landed high although at 2000 rpm, you don't need to be on target more than occasionally, I guess!

I like the video demonstrating side arms. Were those instructors or regular crew members? I may have to join up!

Thanks,
Bob

navydavesof wrote:You know, Bob, I was thinking about this as we were loading Harpoons aboard a DDG recently. If we are going to have the Harpoons up front where they are (which I still think is a great idea) we might want to keep the unrep gear on the face of the super structure. What that would afford is the ability to service the Harpoons without needing a barge with a crane next to the ship or having to be moored up next to the pier.

As you can see, loading Harpoons is a real pain in the butt.

smallJPJ 006.jpg

Loading them with the stability of the ship working to your advantage is a big help. If the UNREP gear can be used for that I would keep it.

Loading harpoons is dead easy.

You only need a few things, and thats brains. Special tool. Tools. Crane with 2/4 ropes to direct it in the good position.
And a few men.

Ive loaded harpoons before, and its easier then loading small munition on board (if you ask me)

carr wrote:

navydavesof wrote: We canceled the rest of the ROSAM orders and were looking at increasing the lethality of the .50 by installing the GAU-19.

David, what's the difference between the GAU-19 and -17?

The GAU-17 is also known as the M-134. It's a 6 barreled gatling gun that fires 7.62mm ammunition. The GAU-19 is a 3 barreled gatling gun that fires .50 caliber machine gun rounds.

I noticed in the videos that the weapon has an initial recoil that pushes the barrel up an inch or two and then stabilizes in that position until the firing ends. Are the operators trained to initially aim low or to correct after the recoil occurs?

No, operators are trained to draw lines with the gun across the target. That's because the GAU-17 can be rather inaccurate and can wobble around a lot like the Mk19. It would benefit from a butt-stock similar to an M-240. That would make it hundreds of times more effective. That way, you can point and shoot it instead of walk the rounds over the target.

I couldn't see any evidence of corrections. In the scenes that showed the rounds impacting, it looked like the majority of rounds landed high although at 2000 rpm, you don't need to be on target more than occasionally, I guess!

Conceptually I agree, but the GAU-19 is a lot more accurate, and that is great for the purposes. The .50caliber bullet really isn't destructive against waterborne craft in the conventional form of an M2HB heavy machine gun that fires at 450-650 rounds per minute (depending on the condition of the internal parts and how clean the weapon is). However, firing at a rate of 2000 rounds per minute, the "death by a thousand paper cuts" factor is there, and the caliber becomes very effective.

So, with any firearm, spraying isn't cool unless you're spraying the target, and the GAU-19 offers the best chance to spray the target with a reasonably effective quantity and type of ammunition.

The GAU-19 would be firing from what you can tell is a far more stable platform (a ship), and you're firing from the elevated position of a ship's rail instead of being on the same plane as was the case in the video (a HMMWV). The elevated position gives you the advantage of shooting down at a target which allows you to better adjust your fire for range and bearing. Being on the same plane only allows you to adjust bearing, greatly reducing accuracy.

I like the video demonstrating side arms. Were those instructors or regular crew members? I may have to join up!

You should see the chicks at Blackwater.

mitchell300 wrote:Loading harpoons is dead easy.

Not if you're loading them from a barge. It sucks and is the worst part of an on-load

mitchell300 wrote:You only need a few things, and thats brains. Special tool. Tools. Crane with 2/4 ropes to direct it in the good position.
And a few men.

Not if you're doing it correctly. You need 5 tag-lines, no fewer, that means 5 crewmen and at least one rigger. However, if you don't do it by instruction, which means you put yourself in the position of being sent to jail and risk damaging assets and killing people, you can jerry-rig it so you have fewer people.

mitchell300 wrote:Ive loaded harpoons before, and its easier then loading small munition on board (if you ask me)

I don't know what small munitions you're talking about, but of all the kinds of lifts we do (VLS, 5-inch, small arms, Harpoons, and pallets of all kinds) Harpoons are by far the hardest. Harpoons hangle and dangle at an angle you have to get just right before you even lift it off the barge, you have to deal with the barge getting waked by some ship going by, the crane swinging, the ship moving, and then the crew fighting the missile as it swings back and forth, all the while trying to get it to sit down on two pegs. Yeah, it's not easy for those of us who have to do it on a barge...at all. So, if it was easy for you, good. Count yourself as lucky.

navydavesof wrote:
Oh, I just LOVE it!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrUXDAhP3Fg

http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files ... 6-62SR.pdf

that noise, or better, "song" is very familiar to me. something i hear very often

i live just in front of the Testing Ground of Punta Castagna, the place where they shoot the video (and the gun..ehhehe), only on the other side of La Spezia gulf.

believe me, somtimes they shot so fast that it seems just a thunder roar...continuous

Check it out, Bob!

"Touch!"

Neato. It's a good illustration of how tall the Mk41 module is.

And here's the hull opened up ready for the module to be installed. Pretty cool!