schnuersi said:

I am not aware that Kongsberg produces ammunition for autocannons. My bet is on NAMMO who allready produce 35 mm ammo,

ah yes. One wonders what kind of projectile ...

That was absolutely correct 20 years ago.  I don't know what the kids are using these days.  I'd assume that it's better now.  It was pretty good back then.  We weren't hit by a single missile, so I'd argue that it was perfect from my perspective.

Moskva had 6 of these mounts.  If someone were to argue that they're so bad that 6 Russian mounts will underperform 2 western mounts, I won't challenge them.  I know what and how many was on Moskva, but I have no idea how well they worked.  That kind of goes back to my original point.  Her demise, when compared with her design criteria, tells a story.  It's not a good one, but it's not a new one either.

Pzh2000 using what appear to be BONUS smart 155mm shells. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/vwpskr/ukrainian_pzh2000_destroying_a_russian_tank_using/

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/155-bonus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors/Nexter_Bonus

I hadn't realized these were sent to Ukraine, but its a cool and handy design.

EmericD said:

I would rate the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles very close to the effectiveness of anti-tank missiles. SAM shot against helicopters are sligthly less effective, but that's probably because even a low flying helicopter is still moving at more than 150 km/h, something no tanks and no boats could do.

Thats something I've been worried about for awhile vis a vis the US presence in the South China Sea / Taiwan showdown scenario. 

I'm hoping the US starts focusing more on Cruise Missile Submarines and Cruise Missile Carrier long range aircraft, because I think the current plan of 'we'll just shoot down all the incoming missiles' is doomed for a hard reality check, barring some sort of 'sharks with laser beams on their head' secret development. 

gatnerd said:

I'm hoping the US starts focusing more on Cruise Missile Submarines and Cruise Missile Carrier long range aircraft, because I think the current plan of 'we'll just shoot down all the incoming missiles' is doomed for a hard reality check, barring some sort of 'sharks with laser beams on their head' secret development.

In the old "Harpoon" video game (that was extremely favorable to Western armies), it was possible to perform the complete "red storm rising" campaign from the Soviet side (eradicating all NATO forces in the Atlantic), without a single soviet loss, using only Tu-95s, Tu-22Ms, and hundreds of AS-4 / AS-6 missiles.

I don't think they use Bonus.
Most likely SMArt 155 has been delivered with the PzH2000.

What can be seen in the video could be the small parachute. But its really to low res to tell.

gatnerd said:

because I think the current plan of 'we'll just shoot down all the incoming missiles' is doomed for a hard reality check, barring some sort of 'sharks with laser beams on their head' secret development.

I angree.
Most likely the assumption is that "our" systems are more advanced enough to be able to pull this off.
Personally I find the low number of weapon systems especially short range on allmost all western ships quite concerning. Not only concidering AShM but also swarm attacks with drones, small boats or even small aircraft. The AShM saturation attack has been a thing for decades allready. If we look at the experiences made recently in the anti piracy missions and what happened to some navies around the world in the last decades it almost seems like there is sort of a carelessness and complacency .
 

schnuersi said:

Most likely SMArt 155 has been delivered with the PzH2000.

That makes sense as thats the German load. 

Both seem for practical purposes basically identical in function?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155

gatnerd said:

Both seem for practical purposes basically identical in function?

Yes. It makes little difference.

This is the really scary stuff. For a tanker this a nightmare. Even more than DPICM.