| From: | Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Shipping (was Re: the value of education) |
| Date: | Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:04:43 +1000 |
> >hullborne. Crew of 21 (4 officers, 17 enlisted). Armed with one 76mm
> >OTO-Melara compact gun and eight Harpoon antiship missiles.
>
> Any SR equivalent for the "compact gun"? autocannon?
The 76mm OTO Melara Compact gun come under the "Modern Naval Artillery"
section of The Encyclopedia of World Sea Power... Basically, it's a 3 inch
naval gun.
76mm OTO Melara Compact Gun
Calibre: 76mm (3 in)
# of barrels: one
Weight: 7.35 tons
Elevation: -15 to +85 degrees
Muzzle velocity: 925m/s (3035 ft/s)
Projectile weight: 6.3 kg (13.9 lb)
Max rate of fire: 10 (minimum) to 85 or 100 rpm, depending on the variant.
Max effective range: 8km surface fire, and 5km anti-aircraft.
That enough detail? : ) There's a 127mm (5 in) version too. Oh, and it's
Italian designed.
> I'll presume the ASMs are capable of blowing the crap ou of any ship
> the PCs are on :)
> Intelligence Rating?
The Harpoon has a 227 kg (500 lb) blast-fragmentation high-explosive warhead
on it with a time delayed contact fuse on it so it can penetrate the target
before detonating. Nevermind the leftover jet fuel, and fragments from the
missile case, etc. On the whole, one will certainly wreck your day. : )
Large ships (cruisers, carriers, battleships etc) will likely survive at
least one or two hits without sinking. If the PCs don't happen to have one
of those handy, however, the chances are good that one or at most two will
send them to the bottom. Assuming they're not vaporised. : )
> >Good points: fast in good weather, resistant to torpedoes and mines
> while
> >foilborne.
>
> Would they be effective in more of a brown water role? Puget Sound,
> Great Lakes?
> Could they be used in large rivers?
Yes and yes... The US Navy cancelled the project after the first unit was
made (USS Pegasus), though eventually 6 were made, instead of the envisioned
30 or so when the project started. No similar project has been put forward
for years, let alone actually approved. Says something about how cost
effective they are, eh?
> >Bad points: fuel-thirsty, couldn't use their foils in anything over
> Sea State
> >4, virtually defenceless, suffered serious vibration that degraded
> their
> >(already limited) sensor fit.
>
> Would any of this be solved by 2060?
Not likely.
> Defencless as in no armour?
Not many ships these days DO have significant armour. The warhead has
definitely won that race. Defenceless, in this case, means that the ship
has no ASW capability and very limited anti-air capability. There's no
point-defense system. There ARE two chaff launchers, and an ECM system, but
all in all it's extremely vulnerable to just about all forms of attack. In
addition, tests suggest that only minimal damage will render the foils
useless.
> >They make interesting coastal-defence assets if you have air cover
> and
> >can rely on fairly decent weather: they'd be quite handy in the
> Persian
> >Gulf, for instance.
>
> I presume running on foils messes your signature totally?
Your sonar signature, definitely. Would mean about didly squat for your
radar signature, though.
> >The Russians and Chinese built quite large numbers of hydrofoil
> torpedo
> >boats (the Shershen and Huchwan classes) and some missile-armed
> units,
> >and Italy and Japan likewise experimented.
>
> Would you know where I can find pics of the Pegasus class, especially
> running at top speed?
I have pics in front of me... Try the US Navy's website, or a general web
search. If worse comes to worse, I suppose I can ask a friend to scan the
pic for you, but try elsewhere first, please.
Slipspeed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
