It was once upon a time, nowadays on Leonardo 76mm gun munitions you have 4AP (4 Actions Plus, multi-function programmable fuze) and if you want to be amazed check Dart anti-missile and Vulcano land-fire-support/anti-ship munitions too, both at about 50,000 USD a piece (Vulcano in 127mm variant) are very interesting for price-range ratio, Dart 5nm, 76mm Vulcano 20nm and bigger 127mm Vulcano 50nm, the punch is not as big as a missile so you have to fire many, but tinier is the target more suitable it become or if target is a Destroyer in the 50nm range you can use the main gun and save missiles for farest targets
First off. . its 57 mm!!! That's an anti-aircraft caliber, not an anti-warship caliber. It can take down a plane, but the only 'ship' it's going to sink with ONE SHOT is a rowboat. This is such utter click bait and BS.
All the world is looking at Mk-110 now that american BAE (ex United) sell it. When it was swedish Bofors selling it few knew it exist, on the other hand but similarly italians sold to almost whole world their 76mm, meaning couldn't be half world stupid and make the wrong choice going even ahead into it, but now America have a small gun too and Canada, Great Britain immediately selected it... Just a question how cheap would be just the fire and forget seeker? Leonardo make it one cheap IR seeker for anti-ship variant of Vulcano 127mm gun ammunition which cost about 40,000 USD a piece and is designed to target ships not small drones or missiles... Price otherwise cost. In my opinion a 30mm gun with an airburst fuze is best solution against commercial grade drones, at least on ships expecially installing 4 of them instead of 2, maybe even against some slower military ones like iranian Shahed 136, because if I find right public available information one 30mm round cost about 35 dollars and can fight drones on effectiveness and cost basis. For faster, more sophisticated so expensive drones, still are there Phalanxs with their burst expensive too. In the future for this fight at the line of sigh we will have lasers
Not sure where you’ll find 100$ plastic drones on the open sea except on container ships… inside containers. But to the point, just because it’s expensive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. They’ll make it, try it out and if everything checks out out it’ll be put into service. It will have to prove its value, if it does, great news more capable equipment in NATO arsenal, if not, great, both the us armed forces and the manufacturer will have learned not to go that route and the R&D (both in tech and the knowledge engineers get) will certainly prove useful somewhere else; the cost being comparatively low (to defense budget)
@@Hypern0va Also you got to think about economy of scale. The more shells you make, the cheaper they would become. Example, the shells for the Zumwalt. That ship had specially designed guided shells that have a small margin of error. (50m) and had a range of 60 to 110 miles. If all 32 proposed ships were made, each shell would cost 32,000 dollars. However since 32 ships got cut to 3, the price skyrocketed to around 1 million a shell. Meaning the guns had no ammunition. At that point you'd just use a missile since it has the same cost with far greater range.
@@Hypern0va I agree we need them, by all means. But some countries are using cheaply made "cardboard" kamikaze drones. I think you got my point that using expensive weapons to take cheap weapons (in masses) will cost too much. However, If 1 shell could destroy many drones (say) then that's using that's getting the best bang for the buck$.
@@grizzlydiscjockey111 war is never about biggest bang for the buck, not since commanders realized you can make the enemy bleed by wasting their resources. If many kamikaze drones could be taken out by a single big shell that would be splendid, the next day they would be flown in a way where it would not happen.‚Costs too much’ will never be a good excuse in anyone’s mouth when there are serviceman’s lives are on the line. In essence, one side does this the other responds, then the first one adapts then the second; today taking out cheap kamikaze drones is expensive, tomorrow will be cheap and the day after everything repeats. Figuratively.
ugh, yeah but this gun sits on the deck of the Freedom-calss littoral combat ship, and they are all being retired because they cannot go faster than 15 knots at sea lol.
in the olden days you needed so many broadsides of large caliber, reload time of 1‑4 minutes, to eventually start landing shots somewhere on the enemy's hull, to eventually convince the enemy captain to either flee or surrender today you hit the bridge in the first 1‑3 shots, with a reload time of 1‑10 seconds, so one captain or another gets highly convinced pretty quickly what they ought to do. At that point the caliber is only important for how it effects range and precision, not for how much damage it causes, and for just _those_ factors the bang‑for‑"buck" of going above 100mm diminishes quickly. 57mm is a pretty sweet spot of performance vs logistics
Truly an impressive piece of equipment. Suddenly, I'd like to get a corvette too.
I went from a Mk75 tech to a Mk110 tech. I was amazed that the rounds cou;d be programmed in so many ways compared to single use rounds the 76 had.
It was once upon a time, nowadays on Leonardo 76mm gun munitions you have 4AP (4 Actions Plus, multi-function programmable fuze) and if you want to be amazed check Dart anti-missile and Vulcano land-fire-support/anti-ship munitions too, both at about 50,000 USD a piece (Vulcano in 127mm variant) are very interesting for price-range ratio, Dart 5nm, 76mm Vulcano 20nm and bigger 127mm Vulcano 50nm, the punch is not as big as a missile so you have to fire many, but tinier is the target more suitable it become or if target is a Destroyer in the 50nm range you can use the main gun and save missiles for farest targets
@@robertopiedimonte2078 seems like bofors tech. and the gun seems identical to a bofors
Could you imagine new Iowa class battleships with automatic 16” guns with this type of projectile technology!
First off. . its 57 mm!!! That's an anti-aircraft caliber, not an anti-warship caliber. It can take down a plane, but the only 'ship' it's going to sink with ONE SHOT is a rowboat. This is such utter click bait and BS.
utter nonsense its designed to deal with swarm attacks that are likely to be deployed by such states as Iran.
lemme know when it delivers beer and pizza instead of high explosives.
All the world is looking at Mk-110 now that american BAE (ex United) sell it. When it was swedish Bofors selling it few knew it exist, on the other hand but similarly italians sold to almost whole world their 76mm, meaning couldn't be half world stupid and make the wrong choice going even ahead into it, but now America have a small gun too and Canada, Great Britain immediately selected it...
Just a question how cheap would be just the fire and forget seeker?
Leonardo make it one cheap IR seeker for anti-ship variant of Vulcano 127mm gun ammunition which cost about 40,000 USD a piece and is designed to target ships not small drones or missiles...
Price otherwise cost. In my opinion a 30mm gun with an airburst fuze is best solution against commercial grade drones, at least on ships expecially installing 4 of them instead of 2, maybe even against some slower military ones like iranian Shahed 136, because if I find right public available information one 30mm round cost about 35 dollars and can fight drones on effectiveness and cost basis.
For faster, more sophisticated so expensive drones, still are there Phalanxs with their burst expensive too.
In the future for this fight at the line of sigh we will have lasers
Knowing that these rounds are going to be expensive, I hope the Military doesn't use these to take down $100 plastic drones.
Not sure where you’ll find 100$ plastic drones on the open sea except on container ships… inside containers. But to the point, just because it’s expensive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. They’ll make it, try it out and if everything checks out out it’ll be put into service. It will have to prove its value, if it does, great news more capable equipment in NATO arsenal, if not, great, both the us armed forces and the manufacturer will have learned not to go that route and the R&D (both in tech and the knowledge engineers get) will certainly prove useful somewhere else; the cost being comparatively low (to defense budget)
@@Hypern0va
Also you got to think about economy of scale. The more shells you make, the cheaper they would become.
Example, the shells for the Zumwalt. That ship had specially designed guided shells that have a small margin of error. (50m) and had a range of 60 to 110 miles. If all 32 proposed ships were made, each shell would cost 32,000 dollars.
However since 32 ships got cut to 3, the price skyrocketed to around 1 million a shell. Meaning the guns had no ammunition. At that point you'd just use a missile since it has the same cost with far greater range.
@@Hypern0va I agree we need them, by all means. But some countries are using cheaply made "cardboard" kamikaze drones. I think you got my point that using expensive weapons to take cheap weapons (in masses) will cost too much. However, If 1 shell could destroy many drones (say) then that's using that's getting the best bang for the buck$.
@@grizzlydiscjockey111 war is never about biggest bang for the buck, not since commanders realized you can make the enemy bleed by wasting their resources. If many kamikaze drones could be taken out by a single big shell that would be splendid, the next day they would be flown in a way where it would not happen.‚Costs too much’ will never be a good excuse in anyone’s mouth when there are serviceman’s lives are on the line. In essence, one side does this the other responds, then the first one adapts then the second; today taking out cheap kamikaze drones is expensive, tomorrow will be cheap and the day after everything repeats. Figuratively.
The cost differences doesn’t matter as long as the threat is eliminated. For other nations, the costs might be an issue. But the US doesn’t .
why dont they put 2 on ships? what if that thing gets hit then you just have fancy cargo ship
Could this be adopted as a faster deployable version of the Patriot?
ugh, yeah but this gun sits on the deck of the Freedom-calss littoral combat ship, and they are all being retired because they cannot go faster than 15 knots at sea lol.
There is no way that thing will sink a ship with one shot. Maybe 100 shots
A Somali battle ship. If you know what I mean.
More like high speed attack boats and drone boats.
Anything you add to such a small round is going to reduce the warhead
Should be tank round ifv
track and guide it self to a rarget? Bullcrap !
a 57mm round that can destroy enemy ships in 1 round? is this a nuke round?
not an enemy _ship,_
an enemy OWA drone
Boghammar built and sold small boats to iran and bofors rounds to take themout.
Isn't it pronounced Bo'fors & not Bofors'?
Whats up with the foreign trolls in comment section, none of their comments make any sense lol
looks just like a bofors... hmmmmmmm
Naval artillery has become tiny.
in the olden days you needed so many broadsides of large caliber, reload time of 1‑4 minutes, to eventually start landing shots somewhere on the enemy's hull, to eventually convince the enemy captain to either flee or surrender
today you hit the bridge in the first 1‑3 shots, with a reload time of 1‑10 seconds, so one captain or another gets highly convinced pretty quickly what they ought to do. At that point the caliber is only important for how it effects range and precision, not for how much damage it causes, and for just _those_ factors the bang‑for‑"buck" of going above 100mm diminishes quickly.
57mm is a pretty sweet spot of performance vs logistics
Shouldn't be the main gun.... Navy is putting out poorly designed ships and thought processes in the 2000's... sad.
Propaganda and lies.